This is a long, but an amazing read:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/march/1361848247/karen-hitchcock/fat-city

The effects of obesity are more gruesome than what you have probably imagined. The cause is not genetic, nor is it due to our level of activity. We're getting fat because of what we're eating. We're eating like this because of culture, but it comes down to corporations working the hardest to promote the worst foods. This stuck out at me.

Quote :

"When a fast-food chain dropped its television ads for a weekend, its revenue that week fell by more than 25%."

If true, this significances clear manipulation of the population into a habit that is directly causing the largest health epidemic of the 21st century. The causation of obesity is not disputable anymore, and profit-driven malice lies at the center of it.

Is there any other valid explanation for this?



The time has come for action, and we should treat fatty foods for what they are. A literal majority of the US population has been manipulated into obesity by the redefining of what food is. We need strong action to tax and regulate the viability out of products like these

6/2/2013 4:08:33 PM

i dont have a problem with this.

but id rather the fat just eat themselves to death.

on the other hand i dont want to pay for their medical care either.

maybe we can devise a way to burn them as fuel?

6/2/2013 4:14:57 PM

^ not far from this proposal

Quote :

"Globally, we are carrying 18.5 million tonnes of excess fat under the skin of the overweight and obese, which – if it were still food rather than adipose tissue – would feed 300 million people for life."

6/2/2013 4:16:02 PM

even better.

harvest this shit and repackage it as something like the "McFatty" and deliver them to starving folks worldwide.

quit giving them money to buy booze weapons.

6/2/2013 4:19:46 PM

one thing we could also do would be to stop subsidizing the corn industry (and by extension, the corn syrup industry). that would help a lot.

6/2/2013 4:50:31 PM

yep.

fucking corn motherfuckers.

6/2/2013 5:05:05 PM

hucking corn motherfuckers.

6/2/2013 5:33:27 PM

Quote :

"i dont have a problem with this. but id rather the fat just eat themselves to death. on the other hand i dont want to pay for their medical care either. maybe we can devise a way to burn them as fuel?"

Sorry bitch, you were born into this society, so now it's your responsibility to help pay for every slob within the national confines of the United States. It's your right as an American to eat McDonalds, pizza, and a gallon of ice cream every damn day and have the consequences be subsidized. Anything else would be barbaric and uncompassionate.

Former fat person here. I can confirm that people are obese because of laziness and gluttony, not of because corn subsidies, media campaigns, or other marketing tactics. Those things obviously don't make things better, but ultimately people will have to make the decision to put down the fork. High calorie foods aren't going away.

[Edited on June 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2013 5:52:00 PM

i mean, i know you were making a point and all, but did you really have to call me bitch?

6/2/2013 6:13:50 PM

Do you really think I'd be intentionally inflammatory to rustle some tdub jimmies like that?

6/2/2013 6:15:36 PM

6/2/2013 6:23:34 PM

A couple of things:

- first realize that a significant amount of corn production ends up as animal feed. You know, what all those high protein "nutritionists" recommend as an alternative to the usual high carb/corn diets most Americans have. If we are talking about ending how much corn we eat we are talking about making meat more expensive, which might push people toward corn/corn syrup regardless

-is there really any evidence that high"fat" foods are directly related to obesity? Carbs, sugar, stress, saturated fat (but not so called "healthy fats") and even changes in the gut biome have all been implicated with obesity. The point I'm making here is that obesity may have multiple causes. Is the link between fatty foods and obesity as strong as the link between cigarettes and cancer (or other closely related diseases). I'm thinking that the current science may still leave some substantial questions, possibly more than what we can condemn food manufacturers for.







All of this being said, I'm still for the responsible labeling of foods, etc. I'm just not sure we are there yet on what types of foods are DIRECTLY linked to obesity. Obviously some foods are unquestionably ready to be labelled (soda, some candies, most fast food, etc). While others are probably really borderline or may even have other effects that are both helpful and harmful.

6/2/2013 6:31:32 PM

Quote :

"fat city, bitch fat fat city, bitch"

also,

Quote :

"We're eating like this because of culture, but it comes down to corporations working the hardest to promote the worst foods. "

there is simply a culture of not doing things that are difficult or unpleasant in the short term, be it eating a salad or studying or working out. and then blaming it on this, that, or the other, anything but a lack of self-control.

i mean, i see a shitload of commercials for bojangles and drive past one twice daily, but i eat there in moderation. i get up early and go to the gym before work. i'm not trying to pat myself on the back, but it's not like i have always been johnny effective over here. i'm a dude who dropped out of college due to laziness, had no money, and got fat. i then realized that i was in charge of my life and i got my shit together.

it's just a bunch of small decisions that lead to big differences over time.

6/2/2013 6:38:57 PM

Food is already responsibly labeled. Putting nutritional info and ingredients on there is really all you need. Putting something like, "WARNING: Eating this product could make you fat" isn't going to do shit nor is really factually accurate. Having an occasional hamburger won't make you fat.

Obesity is an "epidemic" because we have easy access to lots of food, most of the things that shouldn't be consumed in excess taste delicious, and most people lack self control. Different labeling won't help with any of that.

6/2/2013 6:41:10 PM

the problem is that even food that seems "normal" or regularly healthy can be loaded with sugar or HFCS, especially HFCS. most of the milk kids drink at schools has so much HFCS or sugar that they might as well drink soda.

6/2/2013 7:59:36 PM

Quote :

"Obesity is an "epidemic" because we have easy access to lots of food, most of the things that shouldn't be consumed in excess taste delicious, and most people lack self control. Different labeling won't help with any of that."

I'll be generous and assume that your rejection of my proposed solutions doesn't imply you think we don't need a solution. Then, on what level do we need a solution? That's not an easy question. If it is a question for municipalities, I would have no problem moving to a city where Skittles are outlawed - aside from the fact it may indicate the local govt is full of control freaks. I would gladly pay for the privilege of being prevented from buying a certain obvious category of food. But I can't buy this. Is that freedom?

The slope of the graph I posted is positive. Statistically, TallyHo is probably overweight, although I have not checked the photo gallery yet. By my quick calculation, I see the graph's overweight line rising about 4% per every 4 years, looking at the 1999 to 2003 period. That's 1% per year. Let's say you're one of the fortunate minorities who have a healthy body weight.

For how long?

Once the fraction of overweight gets to 80% do you think you'll still be healthy and slim? What about 90%? Remaining slim at that point would be quite the thing to boast about. After all, you've avoided a huge disease risk unlike the vast majority of your countrymen. Do I need to post this graph?



How confident are you in your exceptionalism holding out (assuming you are thin today) when 99% of the rest of the population is experiencing health risks (at minimum) due to unhealthy weight?

Knock the BMI all you want, but on a systemic scale, it accomplished exactly what it was intended to. It is an effective proxy for a gambit of health problems. I would be happy to see a metric that improved upon the strength of correlation by including the effects of body fat and possibly others. That's fine. Doesn't change the trend we're seeing, and this trend is exactly the tidal wave that the media makes it out to be. No, the media has, in fact, underplayed this one.

Cut to commercial break now.

[Edited on June 2, 2013 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on June 2, 2013 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2013 9:18:40 PM

FIFY

Quote :

"Label fatty unhealthy foods like cigarettes"

That includes several kinds of foods:

- Foods high in added sugar
- Foods high in saturated fat
- Foods stripped of their natural fiber
- Foods high in added chemicals (flavors, colors, etc)
- and more

6/3/2013 8:41:48 AM

yellow dye #5 has never hurt anyone.

6/3/2013 10:55:41 AM

Quote :

"Food is already responsibly labeled. Putting nutritional info and ingredients on there is really all you need."

The fast food that makes up such a huge part of most Americans' diet is not labeled in such a way. Here's the ingredients of Taco Bell's "beef":

Quote :

"Seasoned Beef Beef, Water, Seasoning [Cellulose, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Salt, Oats (Contains Wheat), Maltodextrin (Corn, Potato, Tapioca), Soy Lecithin, Tomato Powder, Sugar, Soybean Oil, Sea Salt, Yeast Extract (Contains Gluten), Spices, Garlic Powder, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Disodium Inosinate, Disodium Guanylate, Potassium Chloride, Cocoa Powder Processed with Alkali, Natural And Artificial Flavors, Trehalose, Modified Corn Starch, Inactivated Yeast, Lactic Acid, Torula Yeast, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphate, Less Than 2% Beef Broth, Potassium Phosphate, Potassium Lactate. CONTAINS: SOYBEANS, WHEAT. "

But of course, that's just the ingredient list. It says nothing about the quantities of each of those ingredients in a serving and it doesn't cover the ingredients in the shell, sauce, cheese, etc.

This is just the tip of the iceburg. The vast majority of the processed foods people purchase at the grocery store are filled with sugar and other trash that doesn't need to be there. The cumulative effect of all those sugars is that you're probably getting more sugar than you need from "regular" foods without even having to crack a soda can or eat a sugary dessert. The people didn't ask for it to be put there; rather the corporations put it there and let the ignorance of the people combined with the addictive properties of sugar and carbs do all the work. Our bodies evolved to crave these things; this is an expected outcome.

There was a time when you could assume beef was beef; not beef + a ton of sugar and other crap. If you're not preparing all of your own foods and visiting only a small handful of restaurants (which rarely exist in the bible belt outside of the metropolitan areas) you're probably eating shit whether you like it or not. Manufacturers slowly bastardized food over a period of years similar to the way tobacco companies put additives in their cigarettes to make them more addictive. It was a war for market share aimed to fill the pockets of their stockholders, but the losers are the people who bought the inexpensive yet tasty food they filled the shelves with.

Quote :

"the problem is that even food that seems "normal" or regularly healthy can be loaded with sugar or HFCS, especially HFCS. most of the milk kids drink at schools has so much HFCS or sugar that they might as well drink soda."

Yep. Can't blame a kid who is just the result of ignorant parents and a society with terrible standards for what is an acceptable diet. For those whose maturity level and dietary education teaches them proper nutrition it can take years to form better habits and break the bad habits they grew up with. Very few people who are indoctrinated into our culture of shitty foods will break free from this cycle.

The condescending attitudes of those who aren't overweight/obese will do nothing to solve the problem. People need to realize that the major manufacturers; the ones that make up the vast majority of food options in America, whether you're looking at food in the grocery store or food in a restaurant, are selling you inexpensive poor quality shit at the expense of your health and the benefit of their shareholders.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 1:25 PM. Reason : l]

6/3/2013 1:23:36 PM

I'm confused, are there really millions of people that don't realize that Cheetos aren't good for you? I'm almost certain nearly every single person who is overweight knows exactly why and just would prefer not to spend time/effort/money on changing anything.

6/3/2013 1:30:07 PM

^ will you stand by that statement in 2040? A time when about 1/3rd of middle age Americans had graduated high school overweight. Would you consider a different attitude if nearly every single adult over 30 became overweight?

Your question of "why?" is only trivial in a trivial sense. Why has a single individual become overweight? Why were they eating more? Why was the entire goddam country eating more?

So tell me, why did the nation, and the entire developed world eat more from 1980-2010 than before that? Laziness?

-----
I made this thread because I'm thin and I realized something: I will probably die fat. Statistically, there's no mistaking the trend. I would have to be extraordinary to get through the rest of my life without joining the growing portion of the nation who are overweight or worse (unless I die young). There's no reason to think the trends won't continue.

So I want you to tell me, why am I going to die fat?

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2013 2:08:23 PM

^^ do those people also know that their milk (with sugar added), or orange juice or apple juice or giant bagel is really bad for them?

no, most people really have no idea how unhealthy most of the stuff they eat and drink is. and even those who think they do often only look at fat or calories and ignore carbs. people will buy a fucking bag of twizzlers because it says "fat free treat!" on the bag.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/3/2013 2:15:46 PM

^^^no. there also aren't any people who quit smoking because of the label on the box.

People like to eat and food is fucking cheap in the us. That's it. That's all there is to it.

theres this retarded myth that people just don't get nutrition, and while its true they might not understand specific science, they sure as shit understand that eating more of things makes you fatter. They just don't care.

Similarly smokers didn't give a shit until it started to affect their wallets. Taxes drove up costs and insurance cos were finally allowed to single out smokers for higher premiums. If you do the same things with food by eliminating farm subsidizes on stuff like corn and allowing insurance companies to charge more for overweight people, you'll suddenly start seeing people start to care. (it would also help solve one part of our healthcare problem).

slapping a label on Cheetos that says "this makes u fat, stoopid" is some feel good do nothing garbage.

also re taco bell meat: according to their site its 88% beef and 12% secret. The reason there are no current requirements to list percentages of ingredients is because its usually a trade secret. Now days with the level of food science we have and what not I dont think there are many recipes that cant be reverse engineered so I wouldn't be opposed to requiring ingredient percentages be on the nutrition label.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ^]

6/3/2013 2:28:10 PM

Quote :

"I made this thread because I'm thin and I realized something: I will probably die fat. Statistically, there's no mistaking the trend. I would have to be extraordinary to get through the rest of my life without joining the growing portion of the nation who are overweight or worse (unless I die young). There's no reason to think the trends won't continue. So I want you to tell me, why am I going to die fat?"

I really need you to stop abusing statistics like this. Just the fact that you've looked into any of this makes you an outlier, less than 1% of the population.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2013 2:29:27 PM

Quote :

"theres this retarded myth that people just don't get nutrition, and while its true they might not understand specific science, they sure as shit understand that eating more of things makes you fatter. They just don't care. "

no, people really don't get it, its not a myth. and we have the agriculture lobby to thank for it.

when the food pyramid was used to change people, it went against what nutritionists already knew. it wasn't a mystery to them that you need to manage carbs, but the food triangle went and recommended that the big fat base of the triangle should be carbohydrates (which is actually fitting, since they make you big and fat). we actively taught people terrible food practices.

6/3/2013 2:48:26 PM

Those lobbyists really should have written and voted for better legislation.

6/3/2013 2:52:52 PM

^^Did the food pyramid have any effect on the eating habits of Americans whatsoever?

If the same foods were available at the same cost, but the food pyramid had fewer carbohydrates and more green vegetables, do you think we'd be in a different situation? I don't. Food that is bad for you tastes delicious and takes less effort to obtain. I'm having a hard time agreeing with any solution to the "obesity epidemic" that involves artificially changing any of that (unless we somehow make healthy foods taste fucking great and make them cheap and ubiquitous).

6/3/2013 3:59:07 PM

Quote :

"Did the food pyramid have any effect on the eating habits of Americans whatsoever?"

I'm sure it did. It's basically common knowledge that the foundation of any "heart healthy" diet should be whole grains with very limited fat intake. This is not at all the ideal diet for humans, but people still "know" this because it was drilled into their head as children.

6/3/2013 4:12:00 PM

And that's why go to McDonald's and they eat Doritos and all the other shit in the picture at the top of this thread? Or is this some paleo plug.

6/3/2013 4:14:38 PM

Straight refined sugar is still in the carbs group, if we're labeling all calories as fats, carbs, and proteins.

Indeed, the critical error that culminated in the food pyramid was the judgement that fats were the greater evil over carbohydrates. Both categories are diverse, and a reductionist view is probably wrong. For both fats and sugars, there are types that will probably lead you to feel less satiated.

The (energy in)/(energy out) balance dictates how weight will change, with a nearly perfect scientific consensus behind it. This theory predicts that rising calorie consumption happened in parallel with the rise on overweight individuals. And what do you know...



Ironically, this image is from the sugar lobby itself

http://www.sugar.org/sugar-and-your-diet/caloric-intake.html

That level of mechanistic logic is unimpeachable. Making the link between eating more calories and being lazy is the dubious one. It's not particularly clear that we now eat "more" food, because with what metric do we measure food? I'd wager that the volume of food we eat has decreased. Look no further than the water content of vegetables to see that my claim is trivially true.

If we measure food in terms of satiation, then do we eat more than we used to? After all, isn't that biology's control feedback? What other metric has been steadily increasing since the 80s that could be the root cause of our bodies desiring more food?

6/3/2013 4:28:53 PM

What?

Who is arguing that we eat more food by volume and how is the link between eating more calories and lazyness not compelling? Which is easier: ordering out/eating a frozen meal/preparing a pre-packaged processed meal OR creating a meal plan and preparing healthy balanced meals throughout the day? Which option generally will result in larger and more calorie-dense portions?

If the problem is people doing too much of the former and not enough of the latter, what does that have to do with the sugar or HFCS content of the shitty food?

6/3/2013 4:36:33 PM

Quote :

"Which is easier: ordering out/eating a frozen meal/preparing a pre-packaged processed meal OR creating a meal plan and preparing healthy balanced meals throughout the day? Which option generally will result in larger and more calorie-dense portions?"

And you're supposing this creates an almost perfect linear trend from 1980 to 2004? You are cuckoo.

6/3/2013 4:39:37 PM

I'm not saying it's the entire picture but the availability/variety of shittier food options has increased over time. I'm not sure why that's cuckoo.

6/3/2013 5:11:52 PM

But if "the availability/variety of shittier food options has increased over time", then what should the counter-balance be to it? I can't see what solutions that begs other than:

- we accept that we'll be fatter. forever. it's the price of... the free market?
- we balance worse food availability by better self-control

The latter is not a reasonable expectation. You can say that. You're free to sit there as the average weight of 300 million people has gone up well over 30 pounds above what it biologically should be, and think it's because they just didn't have good values taught to them... or something like that.

The former makes me ask - what do we get for this? We have a situation that pretty much all of us don't want. Even if I can stay thin (although I won't, I'm convinced I'll die fat), I don't particularly want my neighbor to be fat. It's like national masochism..

6/3/2013 5:28:20 PM

Quote :

"But if "the availability/variety of shittier food options has increased over time", then what should the counter-balance be to it? I can't see what solutions that begs other than: - we accept that we'll be fatter. forever. it's the price of... the free market? - we balance worse food availability by better self-control"

Campaigns exposing the food industry and the negative health effects of the changes they have made to the foods that are readily available to us will be key. Look at the results of the tobacco settlement in 1998 as an example of the actions society can take. The main difference between the bastardization of food and the tobacco industry is that we all have to eat or we die; smoking was always optional. If we can sue and vilify the tobacco companies into near oblivion we can do the same to the food companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Settlement_Agreement

I don't think it will happen in the near future, but I wouldn't be surprised if the food industry of today is as vilified as the tobacco industry within the next 10-20 years. Science is catching up and it's only a matter of time (IMHO) before the evidence overshadows the lobbyists and shareholders.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 6:10 PM. Reason : l]

6/3/2013 6:09:15 PM

Quote :

"But if "the availability/variety of shittier food options has increased over time", then what should the counter-balance be to it? I can't see what solutions that begs other than: - we accept that we'll be fatter. forever. it's the price of... the free market? - we balance worse food availability by better self-control"

Yes, the solution is essentially that people must be well informed, and they must behave intelligently and responsibly. It's the same solution for just about every other problem facing society, and it's the solution that no one wants to hear because it requires long-term cultural shifts and adaptations on the part of large populations. There's no legislative (or litigious) silver bullet.

As I pointed out, high calorie foods are not going away. They're cheap and can be mass produced. The technology has been developed and the necessary resources are sustainable. With that said, eggs, milk, vegetables, and meats are not prohibitively expensive for people managing to eat 5,000 calories every day on a regular basis. Yes, it'd be very expensive to eat a 5,000 calorie diet on those foods alone, but given that most obese people need to cut 2,000 calories out of their diet anyway, I don't see adjustments in price due to policy changes as enough. Even if cutting out corn subsidies causes HFCS to double or triple in price, people will still eat candy, cookies, and ice cream in mass quantities because those foods are delicious and still relatively cheap as far as your reward centers are concerned.

Let me reiterate a point I've already made and say it in another way: fat people are not fat because they don't know what they're eating. They're fat because they're gluttonous. They don't eat huge portions because they're hungry, they're eating because of stress and other emotional problems. Food brings comfort, which quickly fades as soon as the taste of sugar/fat/salt is gone, requiring additional stimuli. This core issue is evidently exacerbated by the ease of access to "bad" foods, but every person that gained so much weight will have to fight off some inner demons.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 6:35 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2013 6:31:54 PM

So, we'll keep giving kids pizza, fruit coctail floating in sugary syrup, and milk with added sugar in their school lunches and blame them when they turn into adults who are addicted to pizza and sweets. Forgive me if I seem skeptical about the effectiveness of that plan.

The problem starts long before adulthood. Kids are wired to crave/love sugar. That's evolution, not self control. As long as we have a system that feeds and promotes this as an acceptable diet to them we'll be stuck in this downward spiral. As long as the food companies can get away with serving up shit as the main course and the corn lobby is subsidized to support the shit they're producing we'll be stuck in this downward spiral.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 6:47 PM. Reason : l]

6/3/2013 6:40:26 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the solution is essentially that people must be well informed, and they must behave intelligently and responsibly. It's the same solution for just about every other problem facing society, and it's the solution that no one wants to hear because it requires long-term cultural shifts and adaptations on the part of large populations. There's no legislative silver bullet"

it's the solution that has never proven to work in a large population

6/3/2013 6:44:21 PM

^^No, I don't think that, but you have to realize that kids are developing a taste for this stuff at home. You're not going to find a lot of morbidly obese little kids with fit, health-conscious parents.

Schools serve that kind of shit because there's a demand for it. If 95% of parents were demanding healthier lunches and the removal of junk food, it would happen.

Quote :

"it's the solution that has never proven to work in a large population"

It's a solution that will never "work" across an entire population, because not everyone in the world is going to behave the way you want them to behave. I know hearing that is like nails on a chalkboard for those that view any problem as one election campaign away from being solved for good, but that's reality.

[Edited on June 3, 2013 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2013 6:47:18 PM

Nah, that's not really why that's what's in school lunches. That's what's in school lunches because of terrible government decisions. It's not like schools are catering to the wants of 10 year olds, they don't do it forlunch or curriculum. That stuff is all driven by active lobbyists and an apathetic populous.

There are plenty of cheap, healthy options for school lunch, but school boards have chosen not to serve them.

6/3/2013 6:53:33 PM

When I was in high school, there was the "pizza line", and then there was the "poor line". The "poor line" had vegetables and that kind of nasty shit. This is America, don't serve me anything that isn't breaded, covered in cheese, or loaded with sugar.

6/3/2013 6:56:57 PM

Oh, fuck yeah, I used to eat cookies and pizza for lunch in high school. Of course, I also swam for 2 hours after school almost every day and lifted weights after that... but my mom also cooked real honest to god food for dinner and understood that what I was eating for lunch was not a healthy choice.

6/3/2013 7:00:33 PM

I love hearing the food pyramid and agricultural lobby hasn't helped cause the obesity we have today. It sure as hell isn't everything but telling people they should have a shitload of nutrient poor grains and very little saturated fat is an absolute joke.

This won't keep the fatties eating fast food all the time from doing that but it sure as hell doesn't promote healthy diets either. I really believe there are plenty of people who want to lose weight and will eat less but still eat shitty foods because they don't know any better.

6/3/2013 9:39:59 PM

I hate obese people

6/11/2013 4:58:25 PM

TED MED talk:



Here's the guy's website, and what he thinks the best science is:

http://nusi.org/the-science/review-of-the-literature

His central claim is that we don't know how carbohydrate consumption affects obesity. Plenty of studies have been done where carbs were restricted (for instance), but that lowered total calorie consumption. So it's impossible to say if the type of food consumed is affecting weight loss.

While that's a valid scientific point, it's kind of self-evident from a dieting standpoint. If you want to lose weight eat fewer carbs, and your total consumption will drop. Sounds like that's already a winning theory.

This is all quite admirable, but in terms of policy, we already know everything we need to know. Weight gain as well as insulin disorders result from eating too much food of too high density. In practice, the calorie density drives this all. It's simply the foods that have calories and no nutrition and no fiber that causes it all. It's the introduction of those food that caused people to overeat on the population level.

We need to tell it like it is. A particular type of business strategy has caused entire nations to gain weight.

6/27/2013 10:43:53 AM

One thing I'm curious about is why animals are following this same obesity trend. Not even domesticated animals, this trend is showing up in wild animals as well.

6/27/2013 10:59:35 AM

You know what else is the fucking problem. Not just the shitty food choices but the damn portions people eat. Not to gloat, but I started an aggressive exercise program recently as well as dramatically changing my diet to 1,500 calories day. For lunch I may bring to work something like 4oz of grilled chicken breast with ¼ cup of wholegrain rice and a cup of steamed broccoli, about 300 calories. Compared to what my co-workers are eating my lunch it is tiny. Do you know what 4 oz of chicken breast looks like? It’s about a 1/3 of the whole breast. I used to eat the whole damn chicken breast and that’s not uncommon. When I go out to eat with coworkers they get fatty ass burgers, French fries and Cokes and eat it ALL. They are probably eating 2500 calories in one sitting. I’ll get a sandwich with vegetables and water and only eat half. It’s gotten to the point that I am disgusted at the food choices other people are making. What makes it worse, they are fat as fuck. I mean super fat and all medicated up on blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, cholesterol meds. It’s a fucking conspiracy between the food companies and the drug companies and it fucking disgusts me.

6/27/2013 11:36:11 AM

^ Just curious are you full or satisfied with smaller portions? If not how do you handle that? I sometimes will just have a leafy salad for lunch and it doesnt quite quench my hunger. I feel like I could eat two.

6/27/2013 11:52:45 AM

Quote :

"I sometimes will just have a leafy salad for lunch and it doesnt quite quench my hunger. I feel like I could eat two."

You should eat two. People aren't used to sizing up vegetables. They never learned. Vegetables contain a lot of water mass and fiber. They're simply not calorie dense.

a small fries serving has 245 calories
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fast-foods-generic/9277/2

about that weight in carrots (80 g) has 30 calories
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/3026/2

You're not going to get fat eating healthy foods. That just doesn't happen. If your lunch is carrots, broccoli, tomato, corn, and that sort of stuff it simply won't contribute to weight gain. This just goes back to the point that the human body regulates its weight just fine. But it sure as hell won't if you're eating the fries!

If you want a hearty 700 calorie lunch, you're going to have to eat nearly 2 pounds of solid vegetable matter. Lettuce is even lower density. This doesn't help the social situation because it can't validly substitute other unhealthy food. The hard thing about satiation with healthy food is getting used to living without the heavy sugar and fat we're used to, even if you fill yourself, you'll crave those things.

6/27/2013 12:13:18 PM

^^

dude eat the salad just be careful of the dressing. even the healthier version of salad dressing, tbl spoon of olive oil and vinegar is 130 calories. use fresh squeezed lemon. i also eat 5 meals a day at about 300 cal per meal to help cravings. if i get cravings between the meals i'll chug about 20 oz of water.

6/27/2013 1:07:49 PM