Obese are the Days of Our Lives (Re: Fail Quotes)

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20601_6-ridiculous-myths-you-believe-about-stuff-you-use-every-day.html
Given what Stef, Shane (even the Mises Institute) have pointed out, I can't help but think #6 is either bullshit or at least not telling the whole story.

[MrBogosity]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20601_6-ridiculous-myths-you-believe-about-stuff-you-use-every-day.html
Given what Stef, Shane (even the Mises Institute) have pointed out, I can't help but think #6 is either bullshit or at least not telling the whole story.

I think it's the word "much." In all honesty, they probably aren't THAT different, although the difference is significant. If you have a reason to eliminate or reduce HFCS from your diet you probably need to eliminate or reduce sugar, too. The reason why we spoke out about it was to combat the misinformation from the corn growers that HFCS was all natural and completely healthy, unlike sugar. THAT is what's bogus.

[Travis Retriever]

I think it's the word "much." In all honesty, they probably aren't THAT different, although the difference is significant. If you have a reason to eliminate or reduce HFCS from your diet you probably need to eliminate or reduce sugar, too. The reason why we spoke out about it was to combat the misinformation from the corn growers that HFCS was all natural and completely healthy, unlike sugar. THAT is what's bogus.

Ah.  I see.  I bring it up because of this: https://mises.org/daily/4434  Specifically:

Recent research has uncovered the baneful influence that corn-based sweeteners have had on America's obesity epidemic. It is estimated that Americans consume 73 pounds of corn-derived sweetener per person per year,[14] and as Michael Pollan points out, the growth of corn-based sweeteners is a direct result of the government's farm policy, which subsidizes corn production.[15] A basic consequence of economic law is that when something is subsidized, more of it will be produced. Pollan writes,

Very simply, we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country, but not carrots. While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.

Pollan also correctly notes that the calories from high-fructose corn syrup are unhealthier than those from natural sweeteners such as sugar. Research by Powell et al. concludes that "[r]ats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same."[16] Avena, commenting on their study, said that "

• ur findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic."

With the sources being:
[14] "Sugarcane Profile," Agricultural Marketing Resource Center.p

[15] Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma (New York: Penguin, 2006), p. 108.

[16] M.E. Bocarsly, E.S. Powell, N.M. Avena, and B.G. Hoebel, "High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels," Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior (2010).

And IIRC, they did post more than that on the subject

[MrBogosity]

Yes, corn subsidies result in HFCS being in LOTS of foods that wouldn't have had ANY sweetener put in if they had to pay the full costs for it.

[Travis Retriever]

Yes, corn subsidies result in HFCS being in LOTS of foods that wouldn't have had ANY sweetener put in if they had to pay the full costs for it.

Which would explain a lot.  But if the HFCS insanity isn't the cause--or at least a contributing factor, what exactly *is/are* causing the USA's obesity problem?
I've heard many other ideas that...kinda don't really hold water.

1)  Some say, "it's because of our wealth that we can afford more food".  Okay, but last I checked, there are wealthier countries than the USA, and who don't have this problem.  Hell, this source--http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/517210/20131027/top-10-obese-countries-world-obesity.htm says that Mexico is the second fattest country in the world, last I checked extreme wealth isn't something they're known for. Hell, you'd need only look at our population for a refutation of this strange idea.  Is it the rich who are the fattest?  No, it's the poor, because the cheaper food tends to be worse for you, and make you fat.

2)  Other say "because culture!" which is kind of a non-answer.  Especially considering we get our culture as a melting pot from the rest of the world, and we weren't always this fat as a group/on average.

3) "Fast food!"  has been around far longer than this obesity problem has been.  Hell, freakin' Japan has fast food--even crazier stuff than we have, yet they're generally thinner than the US by a freakin' mile.  And as Hawkeye (and Penn & Teller) have pointed out, the calories/servings of other food places are often much bigger/fattier. Next!

4) "because Americans are lazy" *yawn* see 2); if that were true, why haven't we ALWAYS been this fat, instead of just relatively recently?

Probably others, but yeah, ones I first thought of.

[dallen68]

Which would explain a lot.  But if the HFCS insanity isn't the cause--or at least a contributing factor, what exactly *is/are* causing the USA's obesity problem?

Taking in more calories than their bodies can burn on a consistent basis. Something that wasn't possible for most people until modern agriculture.

[Travis Retriever]

Taking in more calories than their bodies can burn on a consistent basis. Something that wasn't possible for most people until modern agriculture.

A point that was addressed--at least indirectly in 1).  Since agriculture is a part of our wealth.  And again, as far as basic physics is concerned, true, but then why not 100 years ago?  Why not 60 years ago?  We've had agriculture since then, and we even conquered starvation 100 years ago (well, with the exception of the Great Depression).
As with the other stuff that's kind of a non-answer, because I'm past that--like saying fire and gravity is the real culprit of 9/11.  I want to know *WHY* we are doing that as a nation to the point of people calling it a modern day obesity crisis.

[dallen68]

A point that was addressed--at least indirectly in 1).  Since agriculture is a part of our wealth.  And again, as far as basic physics is concerned, true, but then why not 100 years ago?  Why not 60 years ago?  We've had agriculture since then, and we even conquered starvation 100 years ago (well, with the exception of the Great Depression).
As with the other stuff that's kind of a non-answer, because I'm past that.  I want to know *WHY* we are doing that as a nation to the point of people calling it a modern day obesity crisis.

100 or 60 years ago, production costs were still sufficient that working class people couldn't afford to over-indulge. As for "why?", I guess that depends on which your asking about, so I'll go for both. 1. Because food is now abundant and cheap, at least in this country. 2. Because some twits that thinks they no better than some other people how to live their lives are calling it a "modern day obesity crises."

[Travis Retriever]

100 or 60 years ago, production costs were still sufficient that working class people couldn't afford to over-indulge. As for "why?", I guess that depends on which your asking about, so I'll go for both. 1. Because food is now abundant and cheap, at least in this country. 2. Because some twits that thinks they no better than some other people how to live their lives are calling it a "modern day obesity crises."

I don't buy that.  Yet the middle class was at its best in the 1950s, yet they couldn't afford some overindulgence?  Preposterous.
Also, what about countries like Japan?  They are very productive/wealthy and therefore can afford even more food, yet Obesity isn't the problem there that it is here.

[Travis Retriever]

The only other reason besides the HFCS subsidies/sugar tariffs that makes any sense would be the huge amount of open spaces in the country (given that Australia is also far up the list too), making it more difficult to exercise (either at a gym or walking on roads/to places like in cities).  Hell, even where I live, you can't really bike on the main road because of a lack of bike lanes, street lights; and an abundance of turns, trees blocking the view and horrible drivers.  If you live on a cul-da-sac, you can use that, but if your neighbor(s) have a dog that isn't fenced in, you could be risking a bite.  Compared to a city like, say NYC, where you pretty much just walk everywhere as a normal part of your day.

[dallen68]

I don't buy that.  Yet the middle class was at its best in the 1950s, yet they couldn't afford some overindulgence?  Preposterous.
Also, what about countries like Japan?  They are very productive/wealthy and therefore can afford even more food, yet Obesity isn't the problem there that it is here.

First off: Wasn't talking about the middle class. Was talking about the working/welfare class, which is where the pretend obesity "crises" is. Also, the middle class is at it's best now, not the 1950's.

Japan can be explained by cultural differences. Like, they have other forms of entertainment...like hookers.

edit:

Probably should have been more specific and said "shit we call food is more affordable" -and yes, HFCS subsidies are a big reason for that.

As for the rest of it, it would seem to me that the "huge open spaces" would make it easier to excercize, not harder. And yeah, people not restraining their dogs is a problem

[Travis Retriever]

First off: Wasn't talking about the middle class. Was talking about the working/welfare class, which is where the pretend obesity "crises" is. Also, the middle class is at it's best now, not the 1950's.

>>The middle class is at it's best now
I don't buy that.  Especially in light of these facts: http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/So-how-s-that-statist-working-out-for-ya-224810132

Japan can be explained by cultural differences. Like, they have other forms of entertainment...like hookers.

/sigh
Addressed in my post on the matter with numbers.  Once again, culture is a non answer.  The USA shares culture as a melting pot with all countries it gets immigrants from.

And if you're referring to Geisha, those aren't hookers.  That's a misnomer.

[dallen68]

>>The middle class is at it's best now
I don't buy that.  Especially in light of these facts: http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/So-how-s-that-statist-working-out-for-ya-224810132
/sigh
Addressed in my post on the matter with numbers.  Once again, culture is a non answer.  The USA shares culture as a melting pot with all countries it gets immigrants from.

And if you're referring to Geisha, those aren't hookers.  That's a misnomer.

Actually, I wasn't referring to Geisha.

But anyway, the melting pot isn't really an answer, either, because the "epidemic" seems to be only Caucasian/African Americans. Everyone else seems pretty close to ideal weight, if not under.

Also, suspect that if we had a way of poofing our selves to 1953, and measured peoples body fat, we'd find they were just as "obese" as now; except they weren't acting like it was apocalyptical.

[evensgrey]

Actually, I wasn't referring to Geisha.

But anyway, the melting pot isn't really an answer, either, because the "epidemic" seems to be only Caucasian/African Americans. Everyone else seems pretty close to ideal weight, if not under.

Also, suspect that if we had a way of poofing our selves to 1953, and measured peoples body fat, we'd find they were just as "obese" as now; except they weren't acting like it was apocalyptical.

There was a guy studying virus-transmitted oncogenes in chickens who noticed an anomaly: Chickens with cancer that were laying down fat. (Normally, the immune response that cancers trigger blocks laying down fat to liberate energy for the immune response itself.) Work on the virus led him to the conclusion that the virus itself caused the chickens to lay down fat.

He did some checking, and found evidence that a related virus (without oncogenes) swept much of the human population in the later 70's/early 80's (which other studies identify as something of a tipping point in terms of obesity), possibly with similar results.

[dallen68]

There was a guy studying virus-transmitted oncogenes in chickens who noticed an anomaly: Chickens with cancer that were laying down fat. (Normally, the immune response that cancers trigger blocks laying down fat to liberate energy for the immune response itself.) Work on the virus led him to the conclusion that the virus itself caused the chickens to lay down fat.

He did some checking, and found evidence that a related virus (without oncogenes) swept much of the human population in the later 70's/early 80's (which other studies identify as something of a tipping point in terms of obesity), possibly with similar results.

Yeah, it's possible.