# Is it fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight?



## Clementine (Oct 23, 2014)

It seems that the point of this documentary is to point the finger at junk food companies and the claim is that they are responsible for people being overweight and that it's not fair to hold the individuals responsible.    I really thought it was widely known that junk food just isn't healthy and that eating too much food is not a good idea.    Grocery stores carry just about everything, from cookies to spinach.    When you have children, and especially when you take them shopping with you, avoiding certain aisles is always a good move.   No need to go down the candy aisle.    While junk food abounds, there is also a produce section, fresh lean meats, fish and even diet meals and sugar-free items.    It is a matter of personal choice.    We can stop ourselves from gaining too much weight unless there is some condition that actually puts weight on no matter what.   

I think people know better.   I believe people develop bad habits and they are hard to break.  Children especially don't want to eat carrots after they get a taste for candy, but that is on the parents.  It's not ignorance so much as a lack of willpower.    And the liberals in this documentary don't want people blaming obesity on lack of willpower or lack of exercise.   But people know that what they are eating is bad for them and they keep doing it.   I am interested to know what government intends to do to help them.   If they really don't believe that people can help themselves, then clearing the store shelves of all junk food would seem to be their preferred method, but then they would no longer have nasty junk food companies to blame and if the problem was still there, then what?    I would rather parents take that stand and clear the junk from their own kitchens.    After all, the kids will eat those apples when they get hungry enough.   Unfortunately, that hasn't happened so some nanny government supporters would like to take on the role of head of the household, all the while blaming companies for the problem with poor eating habits. 

Michelle Obama's new lunch program isn't real popular with a lot of people.   Of course, that is because some items are boring to people and the portions are skimpy.    All that will happen is that students will eat twice as much when they get home and the school lunch won't help in the fight against obesity.    Only parents who pass good habits onto their children will make a difference.    I am guessing that some in government believe that it's necessary to change people by force, after junk food companies are either sued or taxed to death to pay for new programs.    Have no fear, they don't want to ban sugar or junk food.   Got to have those bad people around to take the blame when people find themselves supersized.    They just want to make sure that the companies pay big bucks to atone for the fact that they exist in the first place and because they cajoled people into eating too much sugar and fat.     And if you want to buy sugar, that's great, but it'll cost you.    You can just never have enough taxes in liberal utopias.      


Sugar Is Evil and Other Silly Claims in the Obesity Wars


----------



## Boatswain2PA (Oct 23, 2014)

Its just as fair as the left's tactics of going after gun manufacturers.

If you are a leftist, anything is "fair" if it furthers your political goals.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2014)

No.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 23, 2014)

No. It is only fair to blame the person who consumes junk food in large quantities, for being overweight. Personal responsibility and accountability. Two attitudes most Americans used to be proud of possessing.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 23, 2014)

No.  I have yet to observe a McDonald's employee seated astride a consumer, cramming food down its mouth.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 23, 2014)

Clementine said:


> It seems that the point of this documentary is to point the finger at junk food companies and the claim is that they are responsible for people being overweight and that it's not fair to hold the individuals responsible.    I really thought it was widely known that junk food just isn't healthy and that eating too much food is not a good idea.    Grocery stores carry just about everything, from cookies to spinach.    When you have children, and especially when you take them shopping with you, avoiding certain aisles is always a good move.   No need to go down the candy aisle.    While junk food abounds, there is also a produce section, fresh lean meats, fish and even diet meals and sugar-free items.    It is a matter of personal choice.    We can stop ourselves from gaining too much weight unless there is some condition that actually puts weight on no matter what.
> 
> I think people know better.   I believe people develop bad habits and they are hard to break.  Children especially don't want to eat carrots after they get a taste for candy, but that is on the parents.  It's not ignorance so much as a lack of willpower.    And the liberals in this documentary don't want people blaming obesity on lack of willpower or lack of exercise.   But people know that what they are eating is bad for them and they keep doing it.   I am interested to know what government intends to do to help them.   If they really don't believe that people can help themselves, then clearing the store shelves of all junk food would seem to be their preferred method, but then they would no longer have nasty junk food companies to blame and if the problem was still there, then what?    I would rather parents take that stand and clear the junk from their own kitchens.    After all, the kids will eat those apples when they get hungry enough.   Unfortunately, that hasn't happened so some nanny government supporters would like to take on the role of head of the household, all the while blaming companies for the problem with poor eating habits.
> 
> ...



Of course not.
The federal government is responsible for most obesity.

It allows ignorant people to spend "food-stamp" money on damn near anything, and it gives the kids two free meals a day, 180 days a year, with summer feeding programs in many places too.

People who get food assistance should get healthy commodities in bulk, and only be allowed to buy healthy whole foods, and dairy products with the  food-stamps.

No more chips, cakes, cookies, ice-cream, sodas, etc.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 23, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the point of this documentary is to point the finger at junk food companies and the claim is that they are responsible for people being overweight and that it's not fair to hold the individuals responsible.    I really thought it was widely known that junk food just isn't healthy and that eating too much food is not a good idea.    Grocery stores carry just about everything, from cookies to spinach.    When you have children, and especially when you take them shopping with you, avoiding certain aisles is always a good move.   No need to go down the candy aisle.    While junk food abounds, there is also a produce section, fresh lean meats, fish and even diet meals and sugar-free items.    It is a matter of personal choice.    We can stop ourselves from gaining too much weight unless there is some condition that actually puts weight on no matter what.
> ...



Yeah, cuz that's the American way.

Maybe you could get a Constitutional amendment, forcing poor people to only eat foods RWs approve of.

The federal govt does not force people to shove sugary, fatty food in their mouth. 

Most food stamps recipients are the elderly and children. Food stamp amounts do not allow for the purchase of high quality food. They eat the crap at McDonald's because that's what they can afford. 

We are human beings. We should not allow fellow human beings to go hungry or to be forced to eat fat food like the great American diet. 

As long as we force people ton live on next to nothing, we will continue to have high rates of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, kidney and liver disease and cancer.


----------



## Rozman (Oct 23, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



What exactly stops people from receiving food stamps from buying healthy food?


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 23, 2014)

Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 23, 2014)

Observe what Fat people eat then don't eat that. Don't go where the Buffalos roam (and graze): Country Buffet, Fast Food Joints, etc.

Fat Person: "I don't eat much. It's Genetic."
Not Fat Person: "Oh so your body changes *Oxygen* into Fat?"


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 23, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.


And why is it cheap? Gov't Corn Subsidies.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 23, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.



First post to be on point here. ^^

It's not only junk food -- unless you count the term "junk food" to be a redundancy given our institutions of store-bought processed (junk) food in general.  That's what brings about obesity on a large scale.  There are a small few who might eat too much into overweight but most of us are being poisoned by our own food supply.  HFCS is one of the culprits.  Mutated wheat with extra gluten injected into it is another.  Endless quantities of sugars injected to bring about addiction.  It doesn't take what we pretend is a separate category of "junk food".  It takes nothing more than a typical grocery shopping trip.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 23, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



Not always possible.  A single mother for example, live in rented rooms or motels, no access to a kitchen, maybe just a microwave.  After  working at a low paying job,  maybe on her feet all day, Pick the  kid up at school, stop at McDonalds.  Still have to go home, get ready for the next day, help kid with homework, bathe  kid.  I've seen so much of it.  Even myself, sometimes worked two jobs, fast food  the only thing I had energy for.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 23, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.
> ...




Not everyone is fat, yet we all eat.    It's still up to the individual to read labels.    I don't know how people can eat so much processed food.    Fresh meats, fruits and vegetables are available.    I notice that a lot of people don't bake from scratch any more.    There is a lot of processed food, advertised as convenient for the busy people, and it contains things most people can't even pronounce.   My mom used to tell me that if you can't pronounce something then you probably shouldn't eat it.  

I have a garden every year and spend time at harvest doing a lot of canning.   I know exactly what is in the jars because it's all organic.   

People have got to take more responsibility for reading labels and simplifying things.    Buying fresh items means no preservatives and other things that aren't really appetizing.

EBT cards shouldn't be used at fast food places.    They should have the same rules that MO imposed on schools.   When you are on the dole, there should be conditions.    Spend your own money your way, but the SNAP program is supposed to provide nutritious food for the children, so that is all it should do.

I don't buy that people can't avoid gaining weight.    I've helped some people lose weight with a diet that simply requires fresh veggies, fruits and lean meats.    It can be done and there really isn't any excuse.    I do think junk food slows metabolism and it's unfortunate that many just aren't willing to make changes to lose weight.

The school lunches now seem to make the students eat more after school.   That's what I hear from some parents.   Our schools provide free breakfasts, lunches and dinner is sent home (called backpack meals) and on top of that the families receive food stamps and WIC.     So, the schools have been providing three meals a day and the parents are given enough food stamps for more meals for the family.   No wonder so many are overweight.    Now Michelle's menus seem designed to cut back on the amount of food at school because they realized that kids were often eating breakfast twice, then eating too much at night.    It's a vicious cycle started by government.     It's great to keep people fed so no one goes hungry, but there is such a thing as overdoing it.     We could streamline the whole welfare system to eliminate wasteful spending and handing over more than is necessary to families.   I know some mothers who receive WIC and they are always giving away big boxes of cereal because they always get too much.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...







McDonalds Southwest Chicken salad (with grilled chicken) balsamic vinaigrette dressing.  Low calorie, heart healthy and delicious.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 23, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Yet when the first lady suggests those fresh foods, the Right goes nuts with cries of dictatorship.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 23, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The portions are pretty slim.    Ideally, parents would have taught their children about eating right and it would be a habit.    That doesn't mean that food can't taste good.    Schools in this area didn't offer junk items before this and it was always balanced.  

It won't help to offer slim pickings for lunch menus if the children will just go home and eat twice as much.  

Parents and the way they raise their children are the biggest problem in the country.   Too many are good at having babies, but suck at being good parents.   No amount of government programs can make people change if they don't want to.   

Michelle's kids eat meals that look good and are probably healthy.    Yet, the public school children are getting some tasteless crap and it's no surprise that they don't want it.   

I think schools should decide on their own meals.    It seems like the more government interferes, the worse things get.    It might just be the 3 free meals a day on top of all the food at home that is causing some children to gain weight.   Not to mention the general laziness of those kids who are hooked on video games.    It's a combination of things, but we go back to the parents dropping the ball.    Kids already have bad eating habits before they set foot in a school.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Yes and no. They share some of the blame. Its weird that a society (that supposedly prides itself on character, integrity and honesty) would think that the companies marketing their poison with proven techniques designed to create a habit or addiction to their products has no responsibility in this.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Yes and no. They share some of the blame. Its weird that a society (that supposedly prides itself on character, integrity and honesty) would think that the companies marketing their poison with proven techniques designed to create a habit or addiction to their products has no responsibility in this.



Sugar and fat have been around forever.    Amazing that we have people pushing 100 years old when they grew up without government agencies protecting them from everyone, including themselves!    

Difference is that parents used to take raising children seriously and that meant setting good examples and putting their foot down.   I ate my vegetables because it was expected and no way would there be cake or ice cream if I didn't eat the good stuff first.   

Some claim that moms just take their kids to fast food places because it's all they have the energy to do.    Then some blame the companies for making the food in the first place.  

Bottom line is that parents teach their children a lot before they go to school.   The child will either show up at school disciplined and taught rules, that include good eating habits, or they won't.    Poor parents can still teach their children good habits.   It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with spending time with them.   Too many parents don't teach their children even the most basic of manners.    I see it all the time.   

It seems to be encouraged to let government lead the way.   If your kids are fat, then government must step in and correct that.    If the kids aren't doing well in school, then government must step in and change the curriculum.    When personal responsibility is never talked about and politicians can only preach about how they can change your life, you end up with the problems we have now.   People who blame others for problems that they should have under control.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and no. They share some of the blame. Its weird that a society (that supposedly prides itself on character, integrity and honesty) would think that the companies marketing their poison with proven techniques designed to create a habit or addiction to their products has no responsibility in this.
> ...



It may have been around forever but not readily available and pushed via marketing like it is now.  If you understood marketing you would realize how powerful it is.  This is by design and not for your health but to seperate you from your money.


----------



## Politico (Oct 24, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> No. It is only fair to blame the person who consumes junk food in large quantities, for being overweight. Personal responsibility and accountability. Two attitudes most Americans used to be proud of possessing.


That.


----------



## I.P.Freely (Oct 24, 2014)

adults no children yes, parents of a non medically obese child should be prosecuted for abuse.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> It may have been around forever but not readily available and pushed via marketing like it is now.  If you understood marketing you would realize how powerful it is.  This is by design and not for your health but to seperate you from your money.



It doesn't work on me and many I know.    I guess some just care about their health and aren't easily swayed by fancy commercials.  

I don't care how attractive they make junk food look.    Anyone with a brain knows that fats and too much sugar aren't good for you.  So, now the left is vilifying companies for brainwashing people into eating themselves to an early death.    Of course, that will be reason to tax or fine them, and don't forget to increase tax on sugar so those stupid people who were fooled by the big bad companies won't be able to afford their "fix."


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > It may have been around forever but not readily available and pushed via marketing like it is now.  If you understood marketing you would realize how powerful it is.  This is by design and not for your health but to seperate you from your money.
> ...



Marketing does work on you. You have a device to access the internet which you dont need. You may be more aware of your food choices and the dangers inherent in junk food and therefore developed a habit to counteract the marketing. Food is akin to a drug and a very powerful one at that. Marketing simply drives your choice of food. Its all very strategic from the way every McDonalds looks exactly the same once you walk in the door with the fries to the left all the way to having them strategically placed in the community to draw you in with the big golden arches.  People who simply say its not a dual problem are missing it. The companies are simply manipulating your instincts to make a profit.  people need to educate themselves in regard to why they do what they do. Once they understand they can then take charge.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 24, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.


They fill almost all manufactured foods with cheap sweeteners.  Read the labels.  Anyone with some modicum of interest in their health will start preparing their own food from scratch.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 24, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Cop out excuse, no time, no energy...I work three jobs and still make time to prepare meals for myself.  I've made that decision precisely because of what I have learned about processed, packaged foods.  If nothing else, you make a couple of meals on your day off and freeze portions for later in the week, when time is at a premium.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 24, 2014)

Another factor is that children don't play the way we used to.  When not doing chores or homework, we were outside, always.  We ran, played ball, built forts...lots of physical activity.  Nowadays, what do kids do for entertainment?  Sit on their asses, messing with electronic gadgets or gawking at the boob-tube.  I'd much rather see the schools cut some of their touchy-feely bs classes than phys-ed and recess.

Dodge ball, anyone?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> It seems that the point of this documentary is to point the finger at junk food companies and the claim is that they are responsible for people being overweight and that it's not fair to hold the individuals responsible.    I really thought it was widely known that junk food just isn't healthy and that eating too much food is not a good idea.    Grocery stores carry just about everything, from cookies to spinach.    When you have children, and especially when you take them shopping with you, avoiding certain aisles is always a good move.   No need to go down the candy aisle.    While junk food abounds, there is also a produce section, fresh lean meats, fish and even diet meals and sugar-free items.    It is a matter of personal choice.    We can stop ourselves from gaining too much weight unless there is some condition that actually puts weight on no matter what.
> 
> I think people know better.   I believe people develop bad habits and they are hard to break.  Children especially don't want to eat carrots after they get a taste for candy, but that is on the parents.  It's not ignorance so much as a lack of willpower.    And the liberals in this documentary don't want people blaming obesity on lack of willpower or lack of exercise.   But people know that what they are eating is bad for them and they keep doing it.   I am interested to know what government intends to do to help them.   If they really don't believe that people can help themselves, then clearing the store shelves of all junk food would seem to be their preferred method, but then they would no longer have nasty junk food companies to blame and if the problem was still there, then what?    I would rather parents take that stand and clear the junk from their own kitchens.    After all, the kids will eat those apples when they get hungry enough.   Unfortunately, that hasn't happened so some nanny government supporters would like to take on the role of head of the household, all the while blaming companies for the problem with poor eating habits.
> 
> ...




it is if you are a libtard


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2014)

Blame the person who can't put down their shovel.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 24, 2014)

gallantwarrior said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



Somehow, you working three jobs, and still have time to do healthy meals, I wonder.  Well when I did two jobs, one full time,one part time, I had the energy for fast food and sleep, period.     Were you trying to raise kids by yourself as well, living in places like the single  moms do that I used as my example?  Maybe rented rooms or even garages, no cooking facilities? McDonalds and cup of soup is usually the meal of the day.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 24, 2014)

gallantwarrior said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...





gallantwarrior said:


> Another factor is that children don't play the way we used to.  When not doing chores or homework, we were outside, always.  We ran, played ball, built forts...lots of physical activity.  Nowadays, what do kids do for entertainment?  Sit on their asses, messing with electronic gadgets or gawking at the boob-tube.  I'd much rather see the schools cut some of their touchy-feely bs classes than phys-ed and recess.
> 
> Dodge ball, anyone?



How do you find time to be an expert  on today's lazy children and lazy food stamp users?  You work three jobs, find time  to prepare healthy meals,  even reading the labels,   and still have time to post on forums and play dodge ball.  Amazing.


----------



## Esmeralda (Oct 24, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.
> ...


It is also palm oil.  Processed foods often have palm oil instead of more healthful oils.  The problem isn't  just junk food; it is all processed food. You have to be careful about what is in processed foods.

What Are the Dangers of Palm Oil LIVESTRONG.COM


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

I don't blame "junk food" companies at all.  The entire blame falls in the laps of fork & spoon manufacturers. Those damned fork manufacturers are literally making a profit selling their products.  That, in and of itself, should be a criminal act but the fact that they're forcing people to stuff fattening food down their gullets is felonious.

On a similar note, I think the Lazy Boy chair company should be sued for promoting slothfulness.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



  Stupidity?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Observe what Fat people eat then don't eat that. Don't go where the Buffalos roam (and graze): Country Buffet, Fast Food Joints, etc.
> 
> Fat Person: "I don't eat much. It's Genetic."
> Not Fat Person: "Oh so your body changes *Oxygen* into Fat?"



    There are people with screwed up thyroids.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...




Ignorance and the fact that the purchase of crap food with foodstamps is allowed.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


You miss the point of the OP ... as usual.  Take responsibility for your Party's idiocy.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Sounds like a lot of bad choices.

Single motherhood is the quickest route to a life of poverty.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and no. They share some of the blame. Its weird that a society (that supposedly prides itself on character, integrity and honesty) would think that the companies marketing their poison with proven techniques designed to create a habit or addiction to their products has no responsibility in this.
> ...


This is exactly right.

We were also taught that we couldn't be picky, or we'd go hungry.

When growing up, in our house, if meatloaf and green beans were for dinner, that is what you had.  

Or you went to bed hungry.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


It's a vast conspiracy, I tell ya.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...


 Unless you have several illegitimate kids which can be quite lucrative under the current Welfare system


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Can't ever remember saying "I won't eat that" because if I did, my brother would have grabbed it.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...




Apparently millions find life on the dole perfectly acceptable and are quite comfortable with it.

Seems to leave a lot of spare cash for tattoos, low riders, Jordans. etc.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


Unless it was okra.  I would have paid someone to eat my share.


----------



## Esmeralda (Oct 24, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Observe what Fat people eat then don't eat that. Don't go where the Buffalos roam (and graze): Country Buffet, Fast Food Joints, etc.
> ...


And there is medicine for that.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


 ... pot, booze, cell phones, gold teeth, gold chains, air shocks, chrome rims, handguns, crack, coke, and McDonald's three times a day.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


Yes.  Which just sparked the memory.  My mother cooked to the family in portion size.  There were six of us and when we finished eating, cleaning up was just dishes.  There never were any left-overs because My mother understood how much it took to feed six people.  There was no waste.

Today, people allow their children to refuse to eat what is made (if it is made at all!) and go and fix themselves whatever they wish.  They usually end up eating only a fraction of that and throw the rest out or it goes bad in the fridge because no one else wanted it for the next week.

So much money can be saved just by learning how to cook the right amounts!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



  Doesnt always work. ......Doctor.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Which is okay, but you'd not get anything else to replace it.

at least, not where I grew up.....


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 24, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Observe what Fat people eat then don't eat that. Don't go where the Buffalos roam (and graze): Country Buffet, Fast Food Joints, etc.
> ...


yeah, how many and are they responsible for ALL the fat people?


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


You never had my mom's stewed okra and tomatos!!!!!!

Okra, FOTG, food of the Gods.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



   Of course not. Most of em are just lazy pigs.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > It may have been around forever but not readily available and pushed via marketing like it is now.  If you understood marketing you would realize how powerful it is.  This is by design and not for your health but to seperate you from your money.
> ...


Everything is the big bad companies.

I wish the big bad companies would go on strike for a year.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


Go to Golden Corral, and watch the fatties pile it on and scarf it down.

I only go when they have the lobster tails, and I tell ya, looking at the fatties makes it hard to eat.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 24, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...


Maybe the damned single moms that are ruining the country with their out of control spawn ought to be sterilized after the first free kid.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and no. They share some of the blame. Its weird that a society (that supposedly prides itself on character, integrity and honesty) would think that the companies marketing their poison with proven techniques designed to create a habit or addiction to their products has no responsibility in this.
> ...



Tell the whole picture though --- the same gummint is also responsible for those ingredient labels being on the package that are so crucial to making intelligent choices.  Those labels are for damn sure not going to be put there voluntarily.

It's also responsible for testing and approving the safety of those additives and artificial toxins, a job they don't do _well enough_.  In area like this, it's not the gummint that's the problem --- it's the corporate puppetmasters who pull their strings.

(for example)


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



   Yep..years ago the wife and I went to a seafood buffet and there was this HUGE guy chowing down....he was still there when we left. 
   Although I will admit to gluttony when crawfish season opens.....my record is 16 lbs.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



It's far, _far_ more complex than simple quantity.  Much more crucial is what kind of food you're eating, when you're eating it in your metabolism's diurnal cycle, and what you're doing afterward to burn it off.  Seafood is pretty strong on protein.

I can make my infamous Mexican chili, completely pig out and stuff myself, and still lose weight.  It's almost all protein.  But if I take a piece of bread with it, that loss goes out the window.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



 That goes without saying.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



Me too.  My dad would sit at the table watching me until I finished my peas.  That could take an hour on some occasions.  Today ... I love peas but still hate okra.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



If you doubt the power of marketing ask yourself why the average american did not brush their teeth everyday prior to the advent of Pepsodent toothpaste. In fact,dental hygiene was considered a national security risk at the time. This was not the first toothpaste invented but it was the first to garner daily use. This coincided with the availability of sugary foods on the market.  I forget the guys name but he came up with a marketing strategy that is still being used in todays marketing. Its a law that is named after him.  You should read this book called The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg to become more educated on the issue.

The Power of Habit Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business Charles Duhigg 3520700000553 Amazon.com Books


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



   Even fried?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Fried okra....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 24, 2014)

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



 Love that stuff!! It's the only way I'll eat it other than in gumbo.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 24, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Maybe the men who made them pregnant, the men who forced her to have the baby and the men who control poverty wages ought to take some of that responsibility. 

No kid is "free" and it takes two to make one. 

The single mothers are doing their job, some better than others. Where are the fathers? 

Go after the dead beat dads and/or the fathers who run out on their families. 

Even if you choose to hate the women, helping single parent families is an investment in our own country's future.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> It seems that the point of this documentary is to point the finger at junk food companies and the claim is that they are responsible for people being overweight and that it's not fair to hold the individuals responsible.    I really thought it was widely known that junk food just isn't healthy and that eating too much food is not a good idea.    Grocery stores carry just about everything, from cookies to spinach.    When you have children, and especially when you take them shopping with you, avoiding certain aisles is always a good move.   No need to go down the candy aisle.    While junk food abounds, there is also a produce section, fresh lean meats, fish and even diet meals and sugar-free items.    It is a matter of personal choice.    We can stop ourselves from gaining too much weight unless there is some condition that actually puts weight on no matter what.
> 
> I think people know better.   I believe people develop bad habits and they are hard to break.  Children especially don't want to eat carrots after they get a taste for candy, but that is on the parents.  It's not ignorance so much as a lack of willpower.    And the liberals in this documentary don't want people blaming obesity on lack of willpower or lack of exercise.   But people know that what they are eating is bad for them and they keep doing it.   I am interested to know what government intends to do to help them.   If they really don't believe that people can help themselves, then clearing the store shelves of all junk food would seem to be their preferred method, but then they would no longer have nasty junk food companies to blame and if the problem was still there, then what?    I would rather parents take that stand and clear the junk from their own kitchens.    After all, the kids will eat those apples when they get hungry enough.   Unfortunately, that hasn't happened so some nanny government supporters would like to take on the role of head of the household, all the while blaming companies for the problem with poor eating habits.
> 
> ...



They deserve to shoulder some of the blame since junk food doesn't occur naturally and is specially formulated to be addictive. Wouldn't go so far as to hold them financially liable or anything. Everyone knows JUNK food is bad for you, hence its' name. Whatever comes from woofing it down is on the eater, not the...Dealers.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 24, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> No. It is only fair to blame the person who consumes junk food in large quantities, for being overweight. Personal responsibility and accountability. Two attitudes most Americans used to be proud of possessing.





How about my pencil for spelling mistakes...

...or my car for drunk driving?


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of deadbeat dads are Democrats.  That's a problem you will have to solve for yourselves.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 24, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



I actually have a regular full-time job, a part-time job as an adjunct professor at the University, and I run my small dairy.  Like I mentioned, I make a couple of nourishing meals on my days off and freeze individual portions.  My daughter is grown now and has two girls of her own, so I'm not faced with dealing with children currently.  When I was raising my daughter, I had one full-time professional job.  As far as where you might live, there are always alternatives to no cooking facilities at all.  There have been times when all I had to cook meals on was a camp stove. 
While I feel compassion for people like the moms you describe, their plights are much the same as many others afflicted in various ways.  Like the alcoholic, the drug abuser, people nowadays have ample opportunities provided by government agencies and community organizations to improve their lot in life.  But not one of us can make the changes needed for moms like this to get out of their predicament.  They need to loose the victim mentality that results in so many waiting for a hand out instead of seizing the hand up, when proffered.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



I don't have my computer because of marketing.    Had one for work before I ever saw a commercial because I used one when no one had them at home.      I have one because I want one and it wasn't about anyone talking me into it.     We buy things we need and want, but it's not based on some company telling us we should.     People make their own decisions.    I am sure some people are easily swayed, but you still can't blame companies and claim that they are able to make people do things against their better judgment.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


Why did you want one?  Yes it is based on what some company tells you should have. Let me guess. You have a Mac?

I can lay blame at the companies feet as well because I know what they do to create a habit or addition *on purpose* with their product.  Think about the great example of the cigarette companies. They are not the only ones that do this.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

gallantwarrior said:


> Another factor is that children don't play the way we used to.  When not doing chores or homework, we were outside, always.  We ran, played ball, built forts...lots of physical activity.  Nowadays, what do kids do for entertainment?  Sit on their asses, messing with electronic gadgets or gawking at the boob-tube.  I'd much rather see the schools cut some of their touchy-feely bs classes than phys-ed and recess.
> 
> Dodge ball, anyone?



Sounds like you grew up in my neighborhood.    I was always outside with friends playing kickball or riding our bikes.   We built forts.   We also built an igloo one winter and had snowball fights.      Watched television on occasion, but mostly Saturday morning cartoons and maybe a show here or there.   

It is sad that children these days spend too much time with electronic babysitters and don't get the physical activity that our generation did.  

We grew up eating vegetables straight from the garden and meals made from scratch.   My mom worked full time and there were 7 of us kids.    Somehow, she found time to cook dinner, but we were expected to help with that and doing dishes after.    Junk food was a rarity and I am lucky to have had parents who passed on good habits, which I passed on to my children.   

We had rules growing up and you just didn't break them or you expected to face consequences.    That has changed with many.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Why did you want one?  Yes it is based on what some company tells you should have. Let me guess. You have a Mac?
> 
> I can lay blame at the companies feet as well because I know what they do to create a habit or addition *on purpose* with their product.  Think about the great example of the cigarette companies. They are not the only ones that do this.



I had decided to own a computer because I liked using one at work.    No, I don't own a Mac.    When I opted to buy one the first time, truth is I went with the cheapest one.   No company ever told me I should have one back then.    Plenty of commercials now try to tell me I need this or that.    So far, no effect.    I was never one to try and keep up with the Jones' like many people.    I think that seeing other people with stuff is the biggest reason some people opt to buy new stuff.  

I was interested from the start in computers and thought they were awesome.    I like technology, though never got into video games.     Somehow, the multitude of commercials couldn't convince me that I should buy one.    I have had the same vehicle for nearly 20 years.   All those commercials for the latest fancy models have not gotten me into a dealer even though I could trade my current vehicle in for a new one.    Even friends suggest that it's time for a new one.   Sorry, I do what I like.  

I use my computer for work to this day.    It's a good thing to have and no one twisted my arm.   Just like no one has to convince me that I should buy a winter coat, cat food, eggs or toilet paper.    Some things you need and you find the best deal.    Commercials aren't likely to direct you to the best deal and should be ignored.   Doing your own homework is always the way to go.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Why did you want one?  Yes it is based on what some company tells you should have. Let me guess. You have a Mac?
> ...


So if you dont own a Mac then you have been marketed to and fallen for it. Its ok because most of the things we do is guided by marketing. The PC is one of the biggest examples of marketing there is. There are other cheaper and better OS's out there than Windows. Bill Gates just happened to be the one that marketed his stuff better. Your job helped with the marketing by providing you with a PC at work instead of a more efficient system. They didnt have to say a word. They just let you develop the habit of using one instead of another system.  The best marketing acts on you at a subconscious level. You dont feel as if someone twisted your arm. They just told you what you wanted to hear and gave you the illusion you made the decision on your own. If you have your own personal tracking device you that you pay for then thats another example of marketing. 

Not everyone is totally controlled but you better believe everyone is affected and controlled to some extent by marketing.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Why did you want one?  Yes it is based on what some company tells you should have. Let me guess. You have a Mac?
> ...



Beautiful post.  I like the way you think.  

The purpose of advertising, said a former adman in a book, is to convince you to buy crap you don't need.  What you actually _do _need, you already know.  So resisting it with cynicism is essential self-preservation.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



Sure you can.  It may take two to complete the transaction, but deception is still not a family value.


----------



## mdk (Oct 24, 2014)

Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

mdk said:


> Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.


Lets look at this from another perspective.  What if you were a smoker and found out smoking was bad for your health and decided to quit.  You tried as hard as you could but you couldnt seem to shake the habit. Now imagine you find out  the cigarette company put addictive ingredients in the cigarette specifically to addict you. Do you see what the end result is?


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




The PC I bought is totally different than the one at work.   Knock it off with the stuff about everyone being tricked by companies.    We make decisions on what we want to buy.    Period.    I chose my own computer the same way I choose what to eat.    I do things in my own best interest.    With computers, I tend to get the best deals since they all become obsolete eventually.    I don't see them as long term purchases.    Might get a Mac if I can afford it, just don't know for sure yet.   

I feel you are attempting to push the notion that we are all controlled by big companies and are helpless to fight against them.   It's bull.   People don't have to eat unhealthy foods.   They choose to do so against their own best interests.  

Marketing is good as far as letting people know what is out there.   It certainly isn't a crime, but I don't buy that people are doing things against their will.  Maybe it's easy to trick some people, but they are letting themselves be taken advantage of in most cases.     Obamacare did big time marketing both before and after it was passed, didn't it?     And those ads contained a great many lies.   I guess that is the best example of people being fooled by ads.   I sure hope they learn their lesson.

Meanwhile, it is a concern that some on the left are trying to use media to convince people that they have no control over their lives and they must rely on government to fix them.     No personal responsibility, no blaming yourselves, just bad companies conning people into eating poorly and getting fat.     Only government can possibly fix this.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


In what way was your PC different from the one you had at work?  They both ran the Windows OS which is pretty much the standard now and definitely was at the advent of the personal computer. The fact you didnt seem to be aware of that is exactly what I am talking about. We do make decisions on what we want to buy but those wants are influenced by marketing. It doesnt make you stupid it just is what it is. Being aware of that helps you make better decisions. The vast majority of people dont do that in life nor in the choice of their foods.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



That's not quite true.  If you're talking about tobacco, yes.  Food: not so much.  Between HFCS, buggered wheat, Frankenfoods and various chemical additives including hidden names, knowledge of what choice one is making is far beyond most people's ken and always a game of catch-up.  And that's only for what's on the grocery shelf; it makes eating in a restaurant a complete crapshoot.  When I buy a tomato, I reasonably presume that it's an actual tomato and not some hack scientist's lab experiment.  When I buy milk, I reasonably presume that it's milk, and not a glass of cattle hormones and antibiotics.  That's an entirely reasonable expectation.



Clementine said:


> Marketing is good as far as letting people know what is out there.   It certainly isn't a crime, but I don't buy that people are doing things against their will.  Maybe it's easy to trick some people, but they are letting themselves be taken advantage of in most cases.



Now you're blaming the victim.
No, it's not my responsibility as a consumer to think ahead of every insidious deception that a processed food company might think of in order to outsmart them.  They have teams of specialists to achieve that deception; I just want to eat.  Guess who's got the advantage there.

Marketing doesn't need to "let people know what's out there", and you're contradicting your earlier sentiment.  Me, I think like you did three posts ago: when I decide I need something, I do the research myself.  I don't need a marketer to try to convince me I need it.



Clementine said:


> Obamacare did big time marketing both before and after it was passed, didn't it?     And those ads contained a great many lies.   I guess that is the best example of people being fooled by ads.   I sure hope they learn their lesson.



Here you're contradicting yourself again.  Is the message recipient at fault, or not?  Pick a side.



Clementine said:


> Meanwhile, it is a concern that some on the left are trying to use media to convince people that they have no control over their lives and they must rely on government to fix them.     No personal responsibility, no blaming yourselves, just bad companies conning people into eating poorly and getting fat.     Only government can possibly fix this.



No idea what you're talking about at this point...


----------



## Politico (Oct 24, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


What a ridiculous statement. You must be one of those this is how I am so it must be true for everyone folks. I wasn't even on the internet a few years ago. Now with companies starting to force people to do shit online it is a necessity. Maybe not for you, but for many. Same goes for marketing. Just because you fall for marketing doesn't mean everyone else does. I know too many ring dings in the pie hole equals fatass. And no amount of marketing will sway me otherwise.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 24, 2014)

Politico said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


Dont get upset about it. Everyone capitulates to marketing. You may be more aware of its affects but you simply have rationalized the extent of the affects upon you. No its not a necessity to own a device with internet access. You've been convinced its a necessity. You fall for marketing just like everyone else. You just have too big of an ego to admit it.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Another factor is that children don't play the way we used to.  When not doing chores or homework, we were outside, always.  We ran, played ball, built forts...lots of physical activity.  Nowadays, what do kids do for entertainment?  Sit on their asses, messing with electronic gadgets or gawking at the boob-tube.  I'd much rather see the schools cut some of their touchy-feely bs classes than phys-ed and recess.
> ...


The coolest treat we'd get was dinner out.  My parents had two places, one an Italian restaurant that served "family style" and the other a pizza joint, "Snoopy's", where we could get pizza and sarsaparilla.  There were times when we'd go out to explore the woods and not get back home until dinner time.  That was our "drop dead" time to be home...otherwise known as darkfall.  I like having my granddaughters at my place here because we have no TV.  During the day when the grown ups are working, the kids are welcome to explore the woods.  Everyone helps prepare dinner and after dinner the table is cleared, the dishes done, and the board games or books come out.  The adults and the children engage each other and enjoy the company.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 24, 2014)

mdk said:


> Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.


Kudos!  125 lbs is definitely an achievement worthy of praise.


----------



## mdk (Oct 24, 2014)

gallantwarrior said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.
> ...



Thanks mate. It is odd to see myself in pictures from years past. I look like absurdly different, almost unrecognizable. It is a wonderful feeling. Cheers!


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

mdk said:


> Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.



That Is commendable!!    I know people who have struggled with losing weight and none regretted going through the hassle of changing habits.    You seem to have a handle on things and getting started is always the hardest part.   

For anyone else who wants to make a change, follow this diet:

Eat every three hours.    Pick two different fruits each day.  Anything except bananas.    Pick a few different vegetables each day.    No carrots.  No potatoes.   No corn.    Choose different lean meats- chicken, ham, turkey or fish.    Meat must weigh 4- 5 ounces.    Unlimited vegetables.   Seasoning okay, but no sauces.    No sugar, pasta or bread for first month.    No fruit juice since you are eating only fresh fruits.    You can have coffee or tea, but no cream or sugar.    No milk.    No alcohol.     No soda, not even diet.   

Example of meals for one day:

1st meal.   1 peach, 4-5 oz. of lean ham
2nd meal.   4-5 oz. of turkey, unlimited tomatoes
3rd meal.   1 orange, 4-5 oz. of chicken
4th meal.   4-5 oz. of fish, unlimited cucumbers

If you are awake for a 5th meal, choose another vegetable and 4-5 oz. of meat or fish. 

Drink lots of water.    Only eat what is on above menu.  

After the first month, you can add a few things.   You can have two hard boiled eggs in the morning instead of meat.    You can make a wrap sandwich with the meat and lettuce or spinach.   

This diet, if adhered to, will change your metabolism and you will lose fat and keep it off.    Best part is you won't be hungry and the diet is healthy. 

I'm serious, I know quite a few people who have done this diet and they wish they would have done it sooner.    If anyone here wants to slim down, I dare you to try this.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 24, 2014)

Clementine said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.
> ...



Carrots??  What's the issue with carrots?  

I agree about the fruit, and I did much of this in shedding 65 lbs since last winter.  The main first thing I did was to give up on *wheat*.  That accounted for half the weight loss all by itself, and I knew it would from having done it before.  But I'm not strict about it, will slip some occasional pasta and cereal.  I don't hold back on eggs at all and I really don't skimp if it's a protein meal.  I can pig out and still lose weight as long as it's not a meal of carbs.  Besides wheat the other thing I had to change was eating too late at night and then going to sleep before it had a chance to burn.  Those two things were the main strategy.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 24, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




Carrots are too sweet naturally.    Same with bananas.

Each person is different and it's a matter of sticking to a diet.   On the diet I posted, people get encouraged right away because it actually works and they don't have to starve or live on rice cakes.    It seems like people are more apt to stick to a diet if they can see results fairly soon and some get to the point where they are obsessed with losing weight.    My hubby once just cut the sugar from his coffee and lost weight.   It's easier with guys.     Anyway, good for you for finding something that works and sticking to it.    I hope it inspires others to give it a shot.

Oh, and since the companies apparently get credit or blame for the results of the food you eat, be sure to send thank you cards to whatever companies sell the fruits and veggies you eat.    After all, they would get the blame if their food made you fat, right?

I see a lot of commercials for those healthy vegetables and fruits.    Since one poster here believes that the companies all brainwash you with marketing tricks, why don't more people get suckered into buying more peas and green beans with all those Green Giant and Del Monte commercials?    Hmmm, I am beginning to think that individuals ultimately make their own choices and marketing just doesn't always work.


----------



## Politico (Oct 25, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Alrighty then. Be a good boy and take your meds.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 25, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> No. It is only fair to blame the person who consumes junk food in large quantities, for being overweight. Personal responsibility and accountability. Two attitudes most Americans used to be proud of possessing.



By this rational ^^^ it is only fair to blame the person who consumes Meth and not those who produce and sell the product.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 25, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



That's an interesting point -- produce doesn't get advertised.  And no, a can of Green Giant peas doesn't count, nor is that really advertised either.  Fruit doesn't get advertised.  At the most these real foods might be mentioned in the supermarket flyer, and even then only what their prices are.

Nobody advertises carrots; they advertise Hot Pockets.  Nobody advertises celery; they advertise Otis Splukmeyer muffins complete with 32 grams of fat.  Nobody markets pears or plums or grapefruit; what they market is McNuggets and chicken wings in sugar sauce and microwaveable plastic platters and the idea that you can save all that horribly creative time in the kitchen, because we'll it for you and give you a drive-through so you don't even have to leave your car and suffer the degradation of walking 40 feet into the store.

As I keep saying -- advertising exists only to convince us to buy crap we don't need.  But to pretend this sort of deception isn't dishonest -- is just dishonest.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 25, 2014)

Politico said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


I guess I've gone and hurt your feelings. I apologize.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 25, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


My point exactly. We (the public) eat like crap because thats what is pushed in the media. If they banned advertising crappy food and pushed healthy foods people would eat healthier. Its amazing to me that people that consider themselves intelligent cant see this.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 25, 2014)

Clementine said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not, it isn't far to blame the junk/fast food for people being overweight. Assigning the blame on fast food or junk food companies is silly and takes away personal responsibility from the avid consumer. I know eating loads of terrible food is going make me hefty, if I choose to do so regardless, then I have no one blame but myself. If you want to be thinner then eat better food and exercise. I used to be pretty heavy, over the last 5 years I have lost 125lbs. It wasn't easy and it wasn't always fun but the results were undeniable. Those results became my driving force to maintain my weight loss. I had no one to blame for me being heavy other then myself. Unless you have some medical condition for being heavy then the blame lays entirely with the person and not fast/junk food companies.
> ...


That's pretty much the program I followed to lose weight earlier this year.  To keep the weight off, you do have to make some permanent changes.  Heavy, starchy carbs and sugary treats should be _treats, _not dietary staples.  Same applies to fried food.  You really do have to pay attention to labels and especially avoid high fructose corn syrup.  I try to keep a fairly stable daily calorie count and compensate if I indulge in a high calorie treat.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Oct 25, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


With the similar program I followed, it wasn't just potatoes and carrots, it was all root vegetable (beets, turnips, rutabagas, etc) because those vegetables tend to have lots of starch, carbs, and sugar.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 2, 2014)

Not one thing in the worst junk food can make someone fat unless the PERSON eats it.  Anyone that blames the food itself is a moron.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 2, 2014)

If someone chooses to eat healthy (I despise those words) more power to them.  If they choose to eat something else more power to them.  People need to be left alone.   It's amazing that the same people who don't want anyone in their bedrooms fall all over themselves snooping in every one else's kitchen.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 3, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> If someone chooses to eat healthy (I despise those words)



 "eat health*ily*".  Better?



Katzndogz said:


> ... more power to them.  If they choose to eat something else more power to them.  People need to be left alone.   It's amazing that the same people who don't want anyone in their bedrooms fall all over themselves snooping in every one else's kitchen.



Too bad that was never the question here.  The question was, and is, "are the purveyors of said junk food responsible".  And you didn't address that at all.

But since you're here -- should overweight people be shot in the face?  You know, like you want to do with pot smokers?


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 3, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > No. It is only fair to blame the person who consumes junk food in large quantities, for being overweight. Personal responsibility and accountability. Two attitudes most Americans used to be proud of possessing.
> ...


I agree, demand begets supply.

That "here, the first hit is free" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

I favour legalization of all drugs.

If for no other reason, natural selection.

Who needs people that cannot handle their dope?


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 3, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


God-damnit, is the individual ever responsible for anything with you libs?

I watch the same damned commercials everyone else does, and I am not a fat pig.

Just because it is on TV does not mean I have to eat it.


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 3, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Only stupid people buy stuff they don't need because of an ad.

To pretend otherwise is what is dishonest.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 3, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And your physiology is exactly the same as everybody else's too, right?

Poster please.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 3, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



If that were true, there would be no point in advertising at all except to the stupid.

Go look up how much money is made in advertising and get back to me.  We may end up with a new definition of "stupid".


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 3, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


The fact you just admitted you have a TV probably doesn't strike you as ironic. Why do you have a TV?


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 3, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


People need food. Too pretend that advertising is not done to convince you to buy stuff makes you either illiterate or dishonest.  Plop plop fizz.....    Can you tell me what product that commercial was selling?


----------



## Rank Your Leader (Nov 10, 2014)

NO..

Blame the parents for letting their children eat junkfoods. 

Twitter: @RankYourLeader
FB: Rank Your Leader


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 10, 2014)

People are responsible for what they eat and no one, or nothing else.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 10, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



That's the entire purpose of advertising -- to convince you to buy something you don't need.  When it's something you _do_ need --- you already know that.

Further, "what consumers buy" is only half the picture, so pretending it's the whole ball of wax is dishonest in itself; the other half being the supplier.

Example:  You're on a long drive, say several hours.  You get a bit hungry but don't have the time to stop for a meal.  You also need gas, so at the gas station you scan the snack possibilities.  Let me know what you see in that convenience store that isn't deep fried, corn syrup drowned, sugared, salted, saturated-fat-laden, hyperprocessed absolute bullshit food.  Rotsa ruck.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 10, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Indeed doubly ironic -- not only is the function of television to get advertiser access to the consumer, but simply in order to have a television that consumer has _already _bought into the idea that the boob tube itself is something they "need".   The wound, so to speak, is already opened.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

Junk food is to blame like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



Cost.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

To answer the question tho its both.  America seems to encourage the hurry up lifestyle that is fast food, lots of work hours, cheap easy foods, etc.

So you can blame all the fat people (which seems to be the point of this thread) but the obesity rate in America has gone through the roof in the last 30 years.  When there is a huge shift amongst an entire population, personal responsibility cannot be the only culprit


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 10, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> People are responsible for what they eat and no one, or nothing else.



The same argument was used for  tobacco products, but government "interference"  has saved quite a few lives that used to be given up to lung cancer and emphysema.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Junk food is to blame like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.



What would explain the increase in obesity specifically in America in the last 30 years?

Could it only be an intangible, like "greedy"?  Americans have gotten greedier in the last 30 years?  All 300 Billion together?

Or could the common denominator be the foods themselves have changed?


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

Easy, laziness. Our society is glued to TV's etc. My coworker is overweight and joined a gym. I think she might have been once in 2 months. Maybe. I'm not even sure if she went the first time or if that was just to pay for the membership. I work out at my house every day for an hour. I used to weigh 206 lbs and got down to 139 just to see what I could do. I am back up to about 170 now but I bulked up a little. I watch what I eat.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Easy, laziness. Our society is glued to TV's etc.



People had TV's 30 years ago but there are more today than before.

You know what else there is more of today?  Fatty, greasy ready to go food that kills...yes or no?


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

No, there was fatty greasy food 30 years ago too, so it's not that. 

30 years ago we had 8 channels to watch and people actually worked for a living. Now we have 47 million on food stamps. Rest assured a huge chunk of those are sitting at home doing nothing.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Easy, laziness. Our society is glued to TV's etc. My coworker is overweight and joined a gym. I think she might have been once in 2 months. Maybe. I'm not even sure if she went the first time or if that was just to pay for the membership. I work out at my house every day for an hour. I used to weigh 206 lbs and got down to 139 just to see what I could do. I am back up to about 170 now but I bulked up a little. I watch what I eat.


There is no arguing that the food has changed as scientific methods to enchance food has progressed.. Processed foods created specifically to create habit and or addiction are much more prevalent. People are less educated about the methods and the food companies know this. Ultimately you have to get educated but lets not pretend the food companies are not specifically trying to get people addicted to their product.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> No, there was fatty greasy food 30 years ago too, so it's not that.



Like I said about TV's there are more.  I didnt say greasy foods didnt exist 30 years ago so now I see what you're doing.



> 30 years ago we had 8 channels to watch and people actually worked for a living. Now we have 47 million on food stamps. Rest assured a huge chunk of those are sitting at home doing nothing.



And the food that you put into your body has nothing to do with Obesity...Just coincidence that an entire nation all got "lazy" at the same time and has nothing to do with actual changes in food?  Just changes in attitude?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 10, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Easy, laziness. Our society is glued to TV's etc. My coworker is overweight and joined a gym. I think she might have been once in 2 months. Maybe. I'm not even sure if she went the first time or if that was just to pay for the membership. I work out at my house every day for an hour. I used to weigh 206 lbs and got down to 139 just to see what I could do. I am back up to about 170 now but I bulked up a little. I watch what I eat.
> ...



Then there's the matter of the proportion of time put into it.  We consumers get thirty seconds to read and interpret an ingredients label, on our own.  Junk food companies have labs dedicated 24/7 to finding the next high fructose corn syrup, the next aspartame, the next cottonseed oil, and at the same time advertising agencies dedicated 24/7 to pushing the results.  And pushing it in ways that are a lot more subtle than direct advertising.


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 10, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Take nuts.  That's what I do when I travel.  Nuts fill me up and are good protein. Or a healthy trail mix.  That and water keep me away from the junk food and expensive food in airports.
21 Healthier Trail Mix Recipes to Make Yourself


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 10, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



I ran across a great way to retrain yourself.  I read this book that covers the topic of self talk and I tried one of the methods to start drinking more water. I recorded myself saying "I love to drink water" and listened to it in the morning for 15 minutes and at night before I went to bed.. After two days I actually craved water when I woke up, at every meal, when I heard running water, and everytime someone mentioned water. I did the same thing with other bad habits. Works like a charm.

What to Say When you Talk To Yourself Shad Helmstetter 9780671708825 Amazon.com Books


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 10, 2014)

It is very obvious that the food available to the American consumer is very different than it was 30+ years ago.  I remember when the first McDonald's came to our neighborhood.  There were a few hamburger  joints around before that, but along with Mcdonald's came a flood of fast food places, like KFC, Dairy Queen, Taco Bell, etc.  And the supermarkets also changed; instead of being mostly stocked with foods meant for cooking, they became half of that and the other half processed foods and junk foods.  What's available has definitely changed.  As Pogo noted, if you are traveling and want a snack, you are hard pressed to find anything healthy in a mini-mart along the way, and the only restaurants on the highway are basically hamburger and other fast food places.

We can think of it as capitalism and that those providing the foods are simply responding to market demands, but advertising is overwhelmingly in our faces day and night, 24/7, everywhere, insidiously, and it very definitely affects peoples' desire for fast food, processed food, and junk food.  Also, I agree that these food producers add ingredients that have addictive qualities, such as sugar and salt.  Or caffeine. Why does cola have caffeine?

People don't have to eat this food, but you almost have to be a scientist to avoid a lot of it.  And you really  have to make a special effort and go out of your way to avoid it. For example, if you are going to be on the road, the only way to avoid relying on junk food might be to prepare your own food ahead of time.

One problem is that women, even though they usually work full time, are the ones in the family who provide meals. When a woman  is working all week, a full day, it's a lot to expect her to come home and cook a healthy meal from scratch, so a lot just order fast food or make something from pre-packed processed foods.

As far as exercise and laziness: our world today invites that too: television with hundreds of channels and remote controls didn't exist 30+ years ago, neither did the internet.  Everyone has a car now; no one walks unless they make a point of it.  In fact, nearly everything is so automatic, you don't get any exercise unless you make a point of it.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

Before we had hamburgers. Now we have the quadrouple double triple bacon cheeseburger.

Yes, food has changed, but one thing that hasn't, nobody forces you to eat. Processed food, non processed, doesn't matter. It's still calories in / calories out.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Before we had hamburgers. Now we have the quadrouple double triple bacon cheeseburger.
> 
> Yes, food has changed, but one thing that hasn't, nobody forces you to eat. Processed food, non processed, doesn't matter. It's still calories in / calories out.



Yes your body forces you to eat.  Thats one reason why starving yourself is not a good idea. It actually cause the body to retain/store more fat. Calories in/out is a simplistic assessment. Most people have to pay attention to find out the amount of calories. At that point it becomes a mental thing. Advertising controls what most people think about.  What is the difference between a Pinto and 550 SL Mercedes? The answer is nothing. Both will get you where you need to go


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

Your body forces you to eat? Your body forces you to go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac? No, your MIND does. My body makes me buy as much healthy food as I can, with a splurge here and there, no harm done. When I go to BK and get a whopper I know I'm not eating healthy. I also don't eat much more than that that day because it's a lot of calories for one meal. I'll usually make myself have salad for a week after I splurge on a whopper. And I've lost 10 lbs in the last month doing this. And I'm never hungry. I'm never STUFFED either, but I'm never hungry.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Your body forces you to eat? Your body forces you to go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac? No, your MIND does. My body makes me buy as much healthy food as I can, with a splurge here and there, no harm done. When I go to BK and get a whopper I know I'm not eating healthy. I also don't eat much more than that that day because it's a lot of calories for one meal. I'll usually make myself have salad for a week after I splurge on a whopper. And I've lost 10 lbs in the last month doing this. And I'm never hungry. I'm never STUFFED either, but I'm never hungry.



Thats correct. Your body forces you to eat. Try not eating and see what happens.Your body will shut down. Your body doesnt make you buy healthy food. Your mind does that. Your body could care less as long as it gets what is needed to keep your body functioning. All those things you are talking about are conscious decisions.  The real trick is getting it to stay permanently in your subconscious. There is a reason most people gain their lost weight right back. They simply dont understand that there has to be an awareness of what you eat and that practice needs to become as subconscious a reaction as tying your shoes.


----------



## hadit (Nov 10, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> It is very obvious that the food available to the American consumer is very different than it was 30+ years ago.  I remember when the first McDonald's came to our neighborhood.  There were a few hamburger  joints around before that, but along with Mcdonald's came a flood of fast food places, like KFC, Dairy Queen, Taco Bell, etc.  And the supermarkets also changed; instead of being mostly stocked with foods meant for cooking, they became half of that and the other half processed foods and junk foods.  What's available has definitely changed.  As Pogo noted, if you are traveling and want a snack, you are hard pressed to find anything healthy in a mini-mart along the way, and the only restaurants on the highway are basically hamburger and other fast food places.
> 
> We can think of it as capitalism and that those providing the foods are simply responding to market demands, but advertising is overwhelmingly in our faces day and night, 24/7, everywhere, insidiously, and it very definitely affects peoples' desire for fast food, processed food, and junk food.  Also, I agree that these food producers add ingredients that have addictive qualities, such as sugar and salt.  Or caffeine. Why does cola have caffeine?
> 
> ...



It's not just that, it's also fear.  When I was young (say 12), all the kids played outside until they HAD to go inside, completely without adult supervision.  We got lots of exercise because if we wanted to go anywhere, we walked, ran, or rode a bicycle.  Then when we found our friends, we were literally running around, playing some active game or other.  We went inside dirty and tired.  Great times.

Today, the very idea of parents allowing their 12 year olds to be outside on their own is practically grounds for arrest.


----------



## hadit (Nov 10, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Before we had hamburgers. Now we have the quadrouple double triple bacon cheeseburger.
> ...



Not necessarily.  The Mercedes will last a lot longer if properly maintained.  You could compare a Mercedes and a Honda, however.


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Your body forces you to eat? Your body forces you to go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac? No, your MIND does. My body makes me buy as much healthy food as I can, with a splurge here and there, no harm done. When I go to BK and get a whopper I know I'm not eating healthy. I also don't eat much more than that that day because it's a lot of calories for one meal. I'll usually make myself have salad for a week after I splurge on a whopper. And I've lost 10 lbs in the last month doing this. And I'm never hungry. I'm never STUFFED either, but I'm never hungry.


My  point was that one has to make an effort, a pointed effort to be very careful about what one eats, in order to have a healthful diet. This is because of the type of food and options with which we are bombarded on a daily basis, based on what's easily available and advertising these foods.  If you are eating at Burger King once a week, and then eating only salads for the rest of the week, and only eating that one meal a day when you eat at BK, that's not a healthful way of eating or losing weight.  To be truly healthy, you need to have a reasonable calorie intake on a daily basis and a variety of foods--protein, carbs, fats, fruit, veggies and dairy--everyday, each in appropriate amounts.  Eating only one meal a day is not healthful.  Eating only one type of food, something very restrictive, for 6 days and then splurging on a high fat meal once a week: this is not a healthful plan. It may keep your weight down, but you aren't doing yourself any real favor in the long term.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

Hadit is bang on right. When I was a kid, we stayed outside until we had to go inside. We would be arranging the football teams on the bus on the way home and team captain was the kid that had the least homework. As the evening went on, more and more kids would join in as they finished homework, chores, etc. I would eat anything I wanted and I stayed skinny because I was always active. I NEVER see kids outside anymore.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Before we had hamburgers. Now we have the quadrouple double triple bacon cheeseburger.
> 
> *Yes, food has changed,* but one thing that hasn't, nobody forces you to eat. Processed food, non processed, doesn't matter. It's still calories in / calories out.



Now we're making progress...at first it seems like you were denying this.  Glad you came around


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Before we had hamburgers. Now we have the quadrouple double triple bacon cheeseburger.
> 
> *Yes, food has changed,* but one thing that hasn't, nobody forces you to eat. Processed food, non processed, doesn't matter. It's still calories in / calories out.



Now we're making progress...at first it seems like you were denying this.  Glad you came around


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

But what you *are* denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

But what you *are* denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 10, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> But what you *are* denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.



I never said that but like most debates what I say and what you hear are two different things.

You want to make this all about personal responsibility ONLY and pretend that food available, for cheap has nothing to do with it.

Everyone agrees its each persons responsibility...not sure why you keep punching that strawman.  But to say everyone has gotten less responsible (which cannot be measured) and not that the worst foods are cheaper and readily available all over (which can be measured) is simply silly


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses. 

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses. 

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses. 

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 10, 2014)

But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses. 

Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.


----------



## hjmick (Nov 10, 2014)

May as well blame the silverware...


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 10, 2014)

hadit said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...





airplanemechanic said:


> But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.
> 
> Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.


Pretty much that is the main reason. Its cheap so it costs less. Not only that the companies sell convenience and better taste via advertising.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 10, 2014)

hjmick said:


> May as well blame the silverware...



Or blame the companies and marketing like we said earlier. Read this article. Pretty interesting.

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food



> But why do Americans buy so much processed food and junky snacks? Well, first of all, junk foods are heavily promoted by the US government via agricultural subsidies for crops like corn and soy.
> 
> Add to that misleading yet highly effective marketing, and — the focus of this article — the _addictive_ nature of junk food, which is a science in and of itself.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 10, 2014)

atm I am overweight and I only blame MYSELF. I actually eat less than skinny people IMHO but I'm older now and do not exercise enough and eat a lot, late at night; as well as the wrong foods. I only blame myself. I wish more overweight people will accept resp. for their health. The only "good" thing is I am quite tall and just a big guy overall. I need to lose about 40 pounds though.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 10, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> atm I am overweight and I only blame MYSELF. I actually eat less than skinny people IMHO but I'm older now and do not exercise enough and eat a lot, late at night; as well as the wrong foods. I only blame myself. I wish more overweight people will accept resp. for their health. The only "good" thing is I am quite tall and just a big guy overall. I need to lose about 40 pounds though.



Drop wheat.  That will get you 40 all by itself.  I speak from experience.
Of course that would require admitting that it IS in part the food supply...


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 10, 2014)

Pogo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > atm I am overweight and I only blame MYSELF. I actually eat less than skinny people IMHO but I'm older now and do not exercise enough and eat a lot, late at night; as well as the wrong foods. I only blame myself. I wish more overweight people will accept resp. for their health. The only "good" thing is I am quite tall and just a big guy overall. I need to lose about 40 pounds though.
> ...




thanks Pogo. I'm addicted to carbs and bread and dough. I know wheat is in almost everything


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 10, 2014)

when I had my motorcycle accident I went from 240 to 200 in 6 weeks on my liquid diet but gained it all back after I got my mouth wires cut off (jaw).


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 10, 2014)

Pogo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > atm I am overweight and I only blame MYSELF. I actually eat less than skinny people IMHO but I'm older now and do not exercise enough and eat a lot, late at night; as well as the wrong foods. I only blame myself. I wish more overweight people will accept resp. for their health. The only "good" thing is I am quite tall and just a big guy overall. I need to lose about 40 pounds though.
> ...



how much did you lose and how much do you weigh now if you don't mind?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 10, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ninja007 said:
> ...



The first time I dropped wheat (I did it twice) I dropped 40 pounds.  All I did was shift from sandwiches to salads, and ate as much as I wanted, even more than I was eating before -- and 40 went away.  It's partly because wheat just isn't what it used to be.

This second time I had to take more off, so in addition to dropping wheat I stopped eating late at night, as you mentioned.  You have to be able to burn it off.  All told I've dropped some 65 pounds since last winter and would ideally drop another 10 to get to what I consider my ideal weight, but I'm way closer than I used to be.

I have a physiology like yours -- I love breads and muffins and pastries and pastas and cookies.  It takes a reeducation and sacrifice.

More on modern wheat here


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

Pogo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



thanks Pogo. You are a very nice person for this. Are you a guy or girl? (no need to answer, just curious). I'm a guy, 41 years old, 6 ft 1.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ninja007 said:
> ...



I'm a guy, about the same height as you, but considerably older.  But weightwise I've hit the 180s.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

Pogo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




oh wow! good for you. Do you drink or smoke? I do not at all. Could you give me a basic day in the life of Pogo's meal plan? Do you eat 3 or 6 meals or somewhere in between? ( I book marked your link- thx). Kevin.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

I know when I was eating healthy for short periods here and there I felt good, clean, clear minded etc and felt more energetic and happy. I also got used to no junk foods and when I did eat a sweet or two, I felt sick.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

I also haven't went to the gym in years. I cannot walk outside too much in the winter months as it is very cold here.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ninja007 said:
> ...



I never drank, never liked it.  I did smoke, lightly, but quit for good 32 years ago.

Generally I eat a whole lot of protein, don't worry much about fats and stay away from _processed _carbs.  Unprocessed carbs, bring 'em on.  I've grown fond of snacking on raw vegetables (carrot/celery/peppers/broccoli) dipped in hummus.  I have eggs every day.  I like cereal but probably like it too much so that's one I have to control.

Body physiology is very complex.  It's never accurate to come up with a straight-out "those people just eat too much" one size fits all theory.  There are infinte variables.

Protein's the thing though.  I can whip up a pot of my infamous Mexican chili, with two cans of beans and a bunch of ground meat, wolf down the whole thing 'til I'm completely stuffed, and still _lose_ weight.  Because it's all protein.  And that suits my physiology in the moment.

I can sneak a pastry, as long as it's like morning and I have a chance to burn it off.  But you have a point about the seasons -- when it's cold there's less activity to burn that stuff off.  Chopping wood for the stove is a good seasonal activity.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

nice- thx Pogo. I'll have to get a good list of healthy foods and get some at the store asap. I have gastritis and a hiatal hernia so gassy beans are a no-no atm. I'm on 2 40 mg of Nexium a day (for years)- I know; very bad... Gotta make sure I get a lot of magnesium and calcium, as Nexium is notorious for fractured bones. I just gotta lose weight. Surgery is an absolute last resort.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> nice- thx Pogo. I'll have to get a good list of healthy foods and get some at the store asap. I have gastritis and a hiatal hernia so gassy beans are a no-no atm. I'm on 2 40 mg of Nexium a day (for years)- I know; very bad... Gotta make sure I get a lot of magnesium and calcium, as Nexium is notorious for fractured bones. I just gotta lose weight. Surgery is an absolute last resort.



Yike.
I popped Nexium for a short time before I had a proper diagnosis (which was ulcers).  Once that got fixed I had no more issues.  Very complex the body is.

How complex you ask?  One night while I was suffering the ulcers, before I knew what they were, they were really really bad, I was on the verge of driving myself to ER -- and I noticed a grapefruit on the counter.  Something told me to eat it.  Conventional wisdom would say that's a bad idea, right?  All that acid?

I bit into the grapefruit and .... _instant _relief.  So well did it work that I started carrying around a grapefruit at all times.

Yogurt oughta be good for calcium/magnesium, or dairy in general.  I like rice pudding myself, which I mix with Nature's Path Hemp granola and fruit (raspberries, strawberries, blueberries work well).  It's unspeakably delicious.  Can you have nuts?  That oughta be good too.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

Pogo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > nice- thx Pogo. I'll have to get a good list of healthy foods and get some at the store asap. I have gastritis and a hiatal hernia so gassy beans are a no-no atm. I'm on 2 40 mg of Nexium a day (for years)- I know; very bad... Gotta make sure I get a lot of magnesium and calcium, as Nexium is notorious for fractured bones. I just gotta lose weight. Surgery is an absolute last resort.
> ...



actually I'm not surprised. They say ACV  (apple cider vinager is the best for stomach issues). The organic with the Mother one. I have had that ACV off and on for years, but it doesn't help much. I even might set up an appt. 4 hrs away to see a specialist who pulls the hernia back down. It's $150 a pop though (plus gas and time off of work). Yep, Kefir yogurt is my fav.


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 11, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> atm I am overweight and I only blame MYSELF. I actually eat less than skinny people IMHO but I'm older now and do not exercise enough and eat a lot, late at night; as well as the wrong foods. I only blame myself. I wish more overweight people will accept resp. for their health. The only "good" thing is I am quite tall and just a big guy overall. I need to lose about 40 pounds though.


I just read recently that it doesn't actually matter when you eat. A study was done, and I don't have the URL, but it found that when you eat is irrelevant as far as putting on weight.  So eating late at night is not a problem. Over eating is a problem. Not exercising is a problem. Eating high fat, sugary, fried, etc., foods, that's a problem.


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 11, 2014)

Pogo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> > nice- thx Pogo. I'll have to get a good list of healthy foods and get some at the store asap. I have gastritis and a hiatal hernia so gassy beans are a no-no atm. I'm on 2 40 mg of Nexium a day (for years)- I know; very bad... Gotta make sure I get a lot of magnesium and calcium, as Nexium is notorious for fractured bones. I just gotta lose weight. Surgery is an absolute last resort.
> ...


I also read recently that pink grapefruit has a lot of good qualities.  It's good to drink a half liter a day.  I am drinking it daily, maybe two glasses, and it feels great.  It doesn't hurt that I absolutely love it.


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 11, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ninja007 said:
> ...


Take a teaspoon of flax seed everyday and drink lots of water.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 11, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.
> 
> Just because bad food is cheap doesn't make people buy it. They still have to put it in the cart and then check out and then bring it home and put it in the pantry.



No its a semantics game.  In order to avoid talking about the real issues with the food supply and availability in the US.  You rather call everything dealing with that topic as an excuse to attempt to avoid it.  Well just because you dont want to address it doesnt mean its not part of the problem.

Everything is an excuse to someone who doesnt want to see it as even POSSIBLY, PROBABLY any other factor.

But everything isnt black and white just because you say it is


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 11, 2014)

What other factor is there besides how much you put in vs. how much you burn out?

All other factors are excuses. Period.

Had the OP titled it "can we blame junk food manufacturers for how unhealthy their food is?" Then maybe. But you can eat 1500 calories of junk food, or 1500 calories of salad and it doesn't matter to your body's weight. You may not be getting the same number of nutrients with the junk food, but nutrients don't equal weight.

Sorry, I've been overweight so I know. I also exercised and watched what I ate and amazingly I lost weight. People who have no self control and blame everyone else for their fat ass have no respect from me. I blamed nobody but myself and I got down to business and got the weight off.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 11, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> What other factor is there besides how much you put in vs. how much you burn out?
> 
> All other factors are excuses. Period.



Thanks for proving my point.  Tell me has anyone said anything the opposite of its what you put in vs what you put out?

Because so far I've seen no one disagree yet you keep beating that dead horse and are either incapable or unwilling to discuss any other factors besides people themselves.  Read the avatar


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 11, 2014)

Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

The lady I work with is overweight. I've seen her, she eats hot dogs, hamburgers, full meals just for lunch. For lunch I eat a sandwich. I take in far fewer calories than her at each meal AND I work out every day for hour, she doesn't work out at all. 

The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 11, 2014)

It is not just junk food.
It is also the Processed food and Canned food.
Almost everything we buy has salt or some form of sugar in it.
It is causing us all to have health problems whether you are fat or not fat.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ninja007 said:
> ...



I hear all kinds of good things about ACV.  My doctor first mentioned it as a help for arthritis.  I've got some here (at this point for reducing cholesterol) but can't quite find enough uses to ingest it every day.  I do apply it to any salad I make, that's about it.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.
> 
> The lady I work with is overweight. I've seen her, she eats hot dogs, hamburgers, full meals just for lunch. For lunch I eat a sandwich. I take in far fewer calories than her at each meal AND I work out every day for hour, she doesn't work out at all.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding.



On the other hand you are afflicted with rigid black-and-white thinking.  Not sure there's a dietary plan for that.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 11, 2014)

peach174 said:


> It is not just junk food.
> It is also the Processed food and Canned food.
> Almost everything we buy has salt or some form of sugar in it.
> It is causing us all to have health problems whether you are fat or not fat.



Processed food is junk food. Processed foods like cereals are high in sugar. Any idiot that can tie their shoe should know that. Whole grain vs the alternative. You have to read up. 

Sugar isn't bad for you, your body breaks down food into sugar. It's how much you eat, not so much what. Salt isn't good for you, but if you monitor what you eat you shouldn't have any issues. Stay away from what makes fat people fat, fast food, and you can avoid sugars, salts, fats and empty calories.

Funny how fresh veggies are still fresh at the supermarket. You seem to ignore those. I buy bags and bags of fresh spinach to eat in salads. Like 20 calories in the entire bag and like 1mg of sodium. Never had an issue with it.

There are labels on food. If you dont like the sugar or salt content, don't buy it. How simple, right? I mean the gov't mandates labels so fat people can know what they are eating. Why not read?

What idiot complains that unhealthy food is unhealthy? Duh. A hamburger has never been a real good healthy food choice. Wasn't 50 years ago, isn't now. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. If you don't agree with what's in it, don't eat it!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

... QED.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 11, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not just junk food.
> ...


Too much sugar is bad for you. Processed foods contain high amounts of easily broken down carbs which convert to sugar. This is why the diabetes problem is out of control here in the US. Fresh veggies and fruit have pesticides and you have no idea if they are safe for you as some are genetically engineered.curiously by some of the same companies that make the pesticides if I am correct.  Basically the only veggies/fruit you can be sure are safe are the ones you grow yourself. 

Yes there are labels on the food but most dont read it unless they are aware of the dangers of eating too much of ingredient X. One thing in particular which caught my attention was the ingredients in supposedly low sugar products for people with diabetes. They are not being honest when they load those products up with carbs and sugar alchols then claim no sugar.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 11, 2014)

If you have a problem with labeling you need to talk to the manufacturer.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 11, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> If you have a problem with labeling you need to talk to the manufacturer.


I have sent them letters and its not a violation of any rule or law to deceive people in this way. Thats beside the point though. The masses of people dont even know this stuff and consume things that are supposedly healthy. You keep trying to place all the blame on people and protecting the companies when they do this stuff on purpose.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 11, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> If you have a problem with labeling you need to talk to the manufacturer.



That's what this thread is doing.

Duh.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 11, 2014)

US message board manufactures food? I didn't know that.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 11, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




we agree here. I have heard sugar is resp. for roughly 75%? of all diseases?


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 11, 2014)

Too much sugar, but just "sugar", no. Your body breaks down everything you eat into glucuse and fructose. These are both sugars.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Observe what Fat people eat then don't eat that. Don't go where the Buffalos roam (and graze): Country Buffet, Fast Food Joints, etc.
> ...


 
And then are those without any medical condition whatsoever than simply want to blame someone else for what is their fault.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> They eat the crap at McDonald's because that's what they can afford.


 
Right after buying their beer and cigarettes with money they say they don't have to buy food.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> We should not allow fellow human beings to go hungry


 
When people don't do it voluntarily to the level you think they should, you believe it's OK to forced us to.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > They eat the crap at McDonald's because that's what they can afford.
> ...



And don't forget the iPhone 6. Gotta have that. At the expense of nutritious food.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> As long as we force people ton live on next to nothing, we will continue to have high rates of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, kidney and liver disease and cancer


 
Whose forcing people to live on next to nothing?  If someone has low skills which translate into an equivalent low level wage, they aren't being forced to live at a low level.  Their lack of skills cause them to do so.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 
Can't count the number of times I've seen someone at the grocery store use the EBT card to buy their food, meaning they've stated they can't afford to buy thier own, then use cash money to buy beer, cigarettes, and whatever other "needs" they have.  I don't have a problem helping, voluntarily, someone that truly can't buy their own food, etc.  However, I also don't have a problem with seeing someone that abuses the system go without because they choose to meet their wants before their needs.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> It allows ignorant people to spend "food-stamp" money on damn near anything, and it gives the kids two free meals a day, 180 days a year, with summer feeding programs in many places too.


 
No one has been able to explain to me that if the amount of food stamps (EBT) is based on feeding someone 3 meal/day for 365 days/year (1095 meals) how other tax money is beingn used to feed them at school when those meals are already be accounted for with EBT. 

It's not about feeding kids but redundancy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > But what you *are* denying is that people aren't responsible for what they eat. It's still calories in calories out. Whether you eat 2000 calories of salad or of pizza, if you stay around that number you won't gain weight. If you don't, you will get fat. And it's nobody's fault but your own.
> ...


 
If it's each person's responsibility, saying they are worse and readily available means nothing.   It's still the person that chooses whether to actually eat them.  The product shouldn't be blamed because the person can't say no.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana and you chose the candy bar, it is you who is choosing your meal. Just because you don't know how to say no to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...




Got it, access and availability means nothing.  Fascinating


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana you choose your meal. Just because you don't know how to say know to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.



What about you put a candy bar in front of them and leave them a banana at the store.  Still the same?  Or does accessibility mean nothing to you also?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > But it doesn't matter, it's all an excuse. What do good excuses and bad excuses have in common? They are both excuses.
> ...


 
It ultimately goes back to the person buying and eating it.   That issue is black and white.  If people don't buy those items, those making them will have no reason to do so.  If demand goes down, so will the supply.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely right. If I put a candy bar in front of you and a banana you choose your meal. Just because you don't know how to say know to the candy bar doesn't make it anyone elses fault but your own.
> ...



The last time I checked, Wal Mart has both. Whether you take a right or a left in the food department is up to you.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...




Whoa wait, I've never heard of this "supply and demand" before


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


 
There are lots of things to which people have access every day.  Some choose to use them and some don't.  In the end, whether or not they get used is based on the person choosing or not choosing to use them.  If people didn't choose to do so there would be no need for them to exist.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



So you're not putting food in front of people anymore?  Ok so now that you've established that Walmart has all kinds of foods are they also priced similar?

Or will you say that accessibility AND price doesnt mean anything?


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

I don't get why liberals don't hold people accountable for their actions. If they chose bad food, it's because it was closer. If they shoot someone, it's because they were abused as kids.

I mean, why don't liberals advocate personal responsibility? I've always wondered that.

You're right, good food is actually cheaper. I can buy 10lbs of chicken leg quarters for 5 dollars. I can buy 1lb of chicken fingers for 6.48. So you're right, if people choose the chicken fingers its because they want them.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 18, 2014)

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but to address the title only, my answer is yes and no. No, because your health is your own responsibility, and yes, due to misleading labels, or no labels at all.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


 
Apparently, you don't understand the concept that if people no longer demand an item there is no need to supply it.  While there are plenty of examples where a producer has introduced a product wanting people to buy it, whether or not people chose to buy it determined whether or not the producer continued to make it.  Ultimately, the end result was based on the demand by the consumer not the producer.  New Coke is a good example.  Coke tried to change the formula but no one bought it.  Guess what Coke did?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...




Could you please type out for me that something being accessible is no different than something that is not?  I want a new signature and that would be perfect


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...




No you are opting to discuss something no one brought up because actually addressing what I say is hard for you.  So you start talking about supply and demand and coca cola


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

I'm sorry, does Wal Mart not sell both? The only places I know of that sell only junk food are gas stations and if you're seeking those out for a source of real food that is your problem, not the food's problem.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


 
Availability does not equate to use.  Something could be readily available but using it is based on a choice by the user.  I don't drink but beer is readily available and only something I could drink if I chose to do so. 

Do you have at least one of everything available to buy?  If you don't, you've proven my claim and disproven yours that mere availability equals use.   I completely agree that if something isn't available people can't use it.  What you seem to be claiming is that because someone is, people using it is based solely on it's availability and nothing to do with their choice to do so.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



  No doubt there...


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Dude, can you just say availability doesnt matter or not?  No one said it equates to anything




> Something could be readily available but using it is based on a choice by the user.  I don't drink but beer is readily available and only something I could drink if I chose to do so.
> 
> Do you have at least one of everything available to buy?  If you don't, you've proven my claim and disproven yours that mere availability equals use.   I completely agree that if something isn't available people can't use it.  What you seem to be claiming is that because someone is, people using it is based solely on it's availability and nothing to do with their choice to do so.



No what you are doing is saying its personal choice (which NO ONE DISAGREES WITH) and saying it CANNOT be anything else.

I'm saying there are multiple reasons...you are saying there is only one.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

It comes down to personal choices. I don't know ANYWHERE in America where ONLY unhealthy food is available so its all a MOOT POINT.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> It comes down to personal choices. I don't know ANYWHERE in America where ONLY unhealthy food is available so its all a MOOT POINT.




See?  The Simpleton approach.  No one said only anything was available Master Strawman Architect


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...





ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


 
Ultimately, there is only one that matters.  Just because something is available does not mean someone has to buy it.  They buy it by choice. 

If someone left their car running would you get into it and take it?  If you say no, you've discounted any claim you have that availability amounts to anything.  Sure, people can't buy something unless it is available.  However, that doesn't mean they have to.  If they do, they do it by choice not because it's there.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > It comes down to personal choices. I don't know ANYWHERE in America where ONLY unhealthy food is available so its all a MOOT POINT.
> ...


 
The Simpleton approach blames an inanimate object for something when it can't do a damn thing unless someone does something with it.   Bet you blame guns for killing people.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Basically the only veggies/fruit you can be sure are safe are the ones you grow yourself.


 
That's why I grow my own vegetables.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Guns and other factors but now I know that considering more than one option is being closed minded


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Dude, can you just say availability doesnt matter or not? No one said it equates to anything


 
If you say that availability is why someone does something, you're saying it's on an equal level to the choice a person makes of whether or not to do it.


ClosedCaption said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


 
You confuse factors with causes.

Considering something that is a passive, inanimate object as a cause when it can't play role other than someone choosing to use it is simpleminded.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


 
There is a difference between affected and controlled.  Affected involves the person making the decision.  Controlled involved someone else making it for you.  Don't confuse factors with causes.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


 
I bet those who want to blame the ones making something available as the cause of being fat don't take into account that the people you mention make the CHOICE to go back 3, 4, or more times.


----------



## jillian (Nov 18, 2014)

Boatswain2PA said:


> Its just as fair as the left's tactics of going after gun manufacturers.
> 
> If you are a leftist, anything is "fair" if it furthers your political goals.



you're conflating unrelated things.

but that's what rightwingnuts like doing.


----------



## jillian (Nov 18, 2014)

ten to one all the people whining about government limiting things like salt and requiring disclosre of nutritional content want government to tell people who they can marry and what they can do with their bodies.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


Thats why I listed both words. Not only are you affected you are also controlled.  Power consists of someone prescribing the limits of your actions and giving you the illusion you are making your own decisions. If you werent being controlled you wouldnt be on the internet.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> It comes down to personal choices. I don't know ANYWHERE in America where ONLY unhealthy food is available so its all a MOOT POINT.



There are a couple of obscure places in America we call "convenience stores".  Try that.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 18, 2014)

Pogo said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > It comes down to personal choices. I don't know ANYWHERE in America where ONLY unhealthy food is available so its all a MOOT POINT.
> ...



Ok, then don't go there. I've never been forced to eat food from a gas station. It was always my choice to do so. My God, just because it's close means we have no choice? WTF?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


 
If I didn't want to be on the internet, I wouldn't be here.  NO ONE is making me be here.  I CHOOSE to do so. 

Power involves convincing you that you have no choice in the matter.  Seems you've been controlled.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You were convinced to be here. You didnt choose to. The power is on display when you claim you made the choice. You knew nothing about the internet until it was marketed to you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


 
I chose to be here.  There are other ways that I can do what I'm doing.  If I want to send a letter, I can send it to someone through the USPS or I can send it through email.  One takes longer than the other but dependent upon the purpose or receiver, I choose which method I use.  That isn't controlling although the end result is a factor is that choice.  Either ways it's a choice.

I knew nothing about a lot of product/services until they were marketed.  Some I choose to use, some I don't.   If I had no choice, I would use the last one for which I saw and advertisement or marketing was provided.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You chose to be here but you didnt choose to be on the internet. It was marketed to you. You tried it out and here you are on the internet claiming marketing has nothing to do with your choices. Dont you find that ironic?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



If I chose to be here and I'm on the internet, I chose to be on the internet.  It can be marketed all day long but if I don't choose to use it, that marketing means nothing.  If I choose to use it, it isn't because of the marketing.  You don't know how I learned about  the internet.  If you claim it was because of marketing, you're saying nothing you've ever bought was done for any other reason than the one selling it convincing you to buy it.

You're simple mind may keep you controlled but many of us aren't so easily influenced.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Your choice was controlled by marketing. You made the decision to be here because you were controlled into trying out the internet. Its ok as long as you are aware of it. Yes I do how you heard about the internet. Someone told you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



My choice was controlled by my decision.  You make it out as if there was no other action for me to take but go on the internet.   It's OK if you want to admit your brain capacity only allows you to do what others force you to do.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


No. What you are doing is rationalizing that you made a choice because you refuse to accept that marketing controls you. There is another action you could have taken. You could have never gotten on the internet. You had no reason to so why did you?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 18, 2014)

You're the one stuffing the food into your mouth. Consider this.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Since you don't know me making a determination about you makes you a dumbass. 

I did so because I chose to do so.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You choose to do so because the internet was marketed to you. Now you are addicted.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> No. It is only fair to blame the person who consumes junk food in large quantities, for being overweight. Personal responsibility and accountability. Two attitudes most Americans used to be proud of possessing.



This is the same argument that cigarette manufacturers used to justify selling their poison. The courts disagreed with them.  So do a lot of Americans.  Sugar may be nearly as addictive as crack cocaine.  And if that is the case, people eating it, and craving it due to addiction aren't the only ones responsible for their condition...

Oreos study How cookies and crack affect brain WJLA.com


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Again, you can't speak for anyone but yourself on anything related to this issue.  Trying to speak for me is typical of your kind.  Perhaps that's why we have things like Social Security.  You justify it as looking out for the people when it's nothing more than what would be considered control.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 18, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> I'm sorry, does Wal Mart not sell both? The only places I know of that sell only junk food are gas stations and if you're seeking those out for a source of real food that is your problem, not the food's problem.




IMO, if a person wants to seriously get healthy, they will not shop at Walmart. It's worth the extra money to shop at the health food store. Trying to find products without the high fructose corn syrup in Walmart is next to impossible.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I can speak for you because I know the truth. You do many things...not out of choice but because of marketing. Sorry but scientists and marketers have already figured this out long ago. There is a reason you brush your teeth everyday. You were marketed the idea and you bit on it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



You can't speak for anyone but yourself fuckhead.  Thinking you can shows you're nothing more than the typical Liberal asshole that thinks he knows what's better for people than they do.  It's people like you as to why we have an unqualified piece of shit in the White House.  He controlled you into believing you should vote for him because he's black.  He marketed it to you.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I'm speaking for you specifically. Now youre trying to divert the issue because you are angry I pointed out the truth to you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 18, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



All you do is run your mouth like the true piece of shit you are.    I speak specifically for you on that matter.  On that I don't have a choice because you've marketed that level of character leaving only one option.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 18, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I can see you are emotionally invested in your supposed choice. Feel free to disregard anything I said.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Nov 18, 2014)

It's your own fault if you're fat. PERIOD.

I'm fixing to have chili cheese fries and a hot dog for dinner. But not from some shitty fast food restaurant, homemade so I can somewhat control the ingredients, AND tomorrow I'll be up at 5 AM getting ready for my morning run.

I eat whatever I want and at age 43 weigh 5 pounds more than I did when I graduated high school.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Nov 18, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> It's your own fault if you're fat. PERIOD.
> 
> I'm fixing to have chili cheese fries and a hot dog for dinner. But not from some shitty fast food restaurant, homemade so I can somewhat control the ingredients, AND tomorrow I'll be up at 5 AM getting ready for my morning run.
> 
> I eat whatever I want and at age 43 weigh 5 pounds more than I did when I graduated high school.



Excuse me Bear but, obesity is not and never has been simply a matter or personal control.  There are genetic, biochemical, as well as microbiological reasons why people become obese.  I would point you to links but I seriously doubt that you are interested in reading up on the matter, so I will leave you with a suggestion - check your facts before you post.  I will also remind you that this is the clean debate zone.  Be nice.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Nov 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > It's your own fault if you're fat. PERIOD.
> ...



Frankly, that is bullshit

People over eat and don't exercise, PERIOD.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2014)

This thread seems to boil down to egocentrism.  "If it didn't happen to me, it doesn't happen, PERIOD".
A simple inability to see beyond one's own self-enclosed bubble.  

Kind of like saying "I don't have Multiple Sclerosis, therefore there's no such thing".


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



Read it and weep, bear:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13obesity.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 21, 2014)

Wrong. If you have a genetic situation where you pack on pounds readily, you have to adjust for it. It's STILL your fault for getting fat. Yes, it might suck only being able to eat 500 calories a day, but if you know that you'll get fat if you eat more and you willfully eat more food, whose fault is that exactly? The ONLY way its not your fault for being fat is if someone handcuffed you to a bed and shoved food down your throat at gunpoint. If you picked up the fork on your own, its your own fault.

If I can only eat 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight but I eat 2500 and I gain, it's nobody's fault but my own. It doesn't matter what some chart says you're supposed to eat. If you eat so much food and you start seeing yourself getting fat, cut back and exercise. Just saying "I eat this much food because I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO" doesn't mean anything if, in the end, your ass is wider than a freight train. You eat what you're supposed to. Everyone has different metabolism. You can only eat so much, so eat that much. Eating more than that with an excuse is just that, an excuse.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 21, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Wrong. If you have a genetic situation where you pack on pounds readily, you have to adjust for it. It's STILL your fault for getting fat. Yes, it might suck only being able to eat 500 calories a day, but if you know that you'll get fat if you eat more and you willfully eat more food, whose fault is that exactly? The ONLY way its not your fault for being fat is if someone handcuffed you to a bed and shoved food down your throat at gunpoint. If you picked up the fork on your own, its your own fault.
> 
> If I can only eat 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight but I eat 2500 and I gain, it's nobody's fault but my own. It doesn't matter what some chart says you're supposed to eat. If you eat so much food and you start seeing yourself getting fat, cut back and exercise. Just saying "I eat this much food because I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO" doesn't mean anything if, in the end, your ass is wider than a freight train. You eat what you're supposed to. Everyone has different metabolism. You can only eat so much, so eat that much. Eating more than that with an excuse is just that, an excuse.


That would depend on if you actually know you have a genetic situation wouldn't it?  Of course its your fault but its also the fault of the company that markets foods to you and puts addictive ingredients in the food without your knowledge, .


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 21, 2014)

Every food you eat has every ingredient in it. It's not up to the food company to do your homework for you. If you want to know whats bad and whats good, look it up. There is a vast knowledge base on the internet.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 21, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Every food you eat has every ingredient in it. It's not up to the food company to do your homework for you. If you want to know whats bad and whats good, look it up. There is a vast knowledge base on the internet.


That has nothing to do with the point. The fact they are putting it in the food and not telling you this upfront puts some blame on them.  Thats like buying a car with hidden flood damage and claiming the dealer is not responsible.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Nov 21, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. If you have a genetic situation where you pack on pounds readily, you have to adjust for it. It's STILL your fault for getting fat. Yes, it might suck only being able to eat 500 calories a day, but if you know that you'll get fat if you eat more and you willfully eat more food, whose fault is that exactly? The ONLY way its not your fault for being fat is if someone handcuffed you to a bed and shoved food down your throat at gunpoint. If you picked up the fork on your own, its your own fault.
> ...




Now THAT i wrong, and happens I'm sure.

However, its not like addiction to meth or something where one hit and you're addicted and ruined for life.

Go to your local Wal Mart and watch all the fatties riding around in those carts that are supposed to be for handicapped people to use and watch what they buy.

It' all processed foods, premade meals, and pure junk.

And they can't even be bothered to WALK through the store to buy that.

Yes, it is THEIR fault they are fat.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > That would depend on if you actually know you have a genetic situation wouldn't it?  Of course its your fault but its also the fault of the company that markets foods to you and puts* addictive ingredients in the food without your knowledge*, .
> ...



Your body craves fats and sugars ... That is why food that is supposed to be bad for you tastes good (for most people ... There are some freaks of nature out there). Both fats and sugars occur naturally and you were born addicted to them.

Nothing you eat today has not been genetically modified ... Unless it is completely chemical in ingredients. The corn, wheat, vegetables, meats and dairy we eat today are not the same genetically as it were 200 years ago.

Every time you cross pollenate bean plants or cross breed livestock ... You have genetically altered the outcome.

.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 21, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


You cant really relate it to drugs because  eating is not only a required action to stay alive but it is also a habit. Like I said earlier its the fault of both parties.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 21, 2014)

Is it fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight?

Absolutely fair...


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 21, 2014)

Boatswain2PA said:


> Its just as fair as the left's tactics of going after gun manufacturers.
> 
> If you are a leftist, anything is "fair" if it furthers your political goals.


And that political goal is *control*....If they get away with one thing, then they will try another and another and another until the total transformation of America *as they hate it *is complete. No food what so ever is a threat to us, but what is a threat to us is inactivity, where as we have no way of burning that fat off once it sets in. These days with the economy bad, and with the way things have been set up as planned over the years, umm we have entered into a stage where our citizens are hit with to much inactivity in their lives, and so when you couple this with eating just about anything and everything that moves, then the results are devastating. I think the government should maybe suggest change, but never to force change. What government should be doing if it knows what the problem is, is to promote activity in the area of exercising or being creative in the areas of jobs for many more people to become active, instead of this laying around on their butt's drawing welfare or living in free housing etc.  It also should be spurring economic growth for all Americans through creativity and idea's, instead of the blame game that is being played today by the government in which it is now since totally captivated upon.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> No food what so ever is a threat to us,





How did you get to this planet?


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 21, 2014)

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > No food what so ever is a threat to us,
> ...


Well I am living proof of that which I speak, because I was a lineman in my life, and I worked on the right of ways way back in the day until retired finally. It was hard work and yet we loved it.. We ate anything that we liked, and anything that was offered up as to be deemed legal by the FDA standards of safety in America. We drank those big gulp drinks and all that jazz. We burned off our food and liquid diets working hard, and we never had a problem at all with obesity or anything like that all the way up until we were no longer working like that anymore (retired). In fact I would eat a Wendy's triple burger meal like it was nothing, and I would eat any other meal like that without an ounce of fat being gained up into my late 40's. Now what planet did you say you came from, that LAZYmoon planet in which is just beyond that black hole where your thinking is right now ?


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 21, 2014)

Ooooooo..active people may be tooo aware.. Let' numb that down a bit...,heh?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




And you actually believe the commercial food supply now is exactly what it was "then".  

Ah, it must be Christmas.  Naivete scene.

And a perfect illustration of post 240 too.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 21, 2014)

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Matters not, but what matters is how active you are in order to process that food on out (separating the bad from the good in it's nutritional value upon whatever part of it that it might hold or could be good for you), and then to get those poisons out of you afterwards by allowing the body to do it's thing like it is suppose too by staying active as possible in ones life. The body has a remarkable system of doing things like that, but if we lay on our butt's doing nothing but stuffing ourselves to our deaths ultimately, and with any kind of food, then we get what we deserve I guess. 

I guess people like committing suicide by food these days, because they know what they are doing to themselves, but is it the governments job to enforce a food and drink ban on us all or maybe it should rather figure out ways to get everyone back to being constructive in their lives, and this instead of being eternal couch potato's instead.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2014)

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Would be nice if that worked, but it won't.  You can't legislate culture. 
But you can regulate what goes into food.  And to a laughably minimal amount, we do.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 22, 2014)

I'll put it flatly. It isn't what you eat, it's how much you eat. You can eat so much you overwhelm your body...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Wrong. If you have a genetic situation where you pack on pounds readily, you have to adjust for it. It's STILL your fault for getting fat. Yes, it might suck only being able to eat 500 calories a day, but if you know that you'll get fat if you eat more and you willfully eat more food, whose fault is that exactly? The ONLY way its not your fault for being fat is if someone handcuffed you to a bed and shoved food down your throat at gunpoint. If you picked up the fork on your own, its your own fault.
> 
> If I can only eat 2000 calories a day to maintain my weight but I eat 2500 and I gain, it's nobody's fault but my own. It doesn't matter what some chart says you're supposed to eat. If you eat so much food and you start seeing yourself getting fat, cut back and exercise. Just saying "I eat this much food because I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO" doesn't mean anything if, in the end, your ass is wider than a freight train. You eat what you're supposed to. Everyone has different metabolism. You can only eat so much, so eat that much. Eating more than that with an excuse is just that, an excuse.



If the a normal diet is 2000 calories and someone eats only 500 and still gets fat, how is it their fault that they are fat?  You suggest that they should eat even less, but how is a long-term starvation diet going to keep them healthy, particularly when they may be healthy despite being overweight?  Many people have slow metabolisms and other genetic disorders that hinder their ability to shed fat.  Others have the wrong microbiota in their guts, and a lot of the reason for that is all the damned antibiotics in our foods.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. If you have a genetic situation where you pack on pounds readily, you have to adjust for it. It's STILL your fault for getting fat. Yes, it might suck only being able to eat 500 calories a day, but if you know that you'll get fat if you eat more and you willfully eat more food, whose fault is that exactly? The ONLY way its not your fault for being fat is if someone handcuffed you to a bed and shoved food down your throat at gunpoint. If you picked up the fork on your own, its your own fault.
> ...



And how many morbidly obese people eat only 500 calories a day?

Calling an outlier the norm is just a little disingenuous isn't it?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Every food you eat has every ingredient in it. It's not up to the food company to do your homework for you. If you want to know whats bad and whats good, look it up. There is a vast knowledge base on the internet.



The USDA and the FDA wholeheartedly disagrees with you, as do I.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



Anyway you look at it, obesity is abnormal.  The fact of the matter is that it is much more complicated than many people realize.  And contrary to the opinion of some here, it is a recognized medical condition.  I'm not making excuses for anyone here anymore than I am making excuses for autistic children because they are autistic.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



One cannot control the physicality or the neuro-chemical balance of their brains.

One can control what they eat and how much exercise they get.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway you look at it, obesity is abnormal.  The fact of the matter is that it is much more complicated than many people realize.  And contrary to the opinion of some here, it is a recognized medical condition.  I'm not making excuses for anyone here anymore than I am making excuses for autistic children because they are autistic.
> ...


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > It's your own fault if you're fat. PERIOD.
> ...



People wanting to blame anything they can when the cause of their obesity is because they can't push away from the table seems to be easy.  There are medical things that can make being obese more likely but not putting the fork down is not one of them.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



That's what I told him.  If the people who want to blame  all sorts of things for their obesity would spend half as much time pushing away from the table or exercising as they do finding excuses, they might not be obese.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > No food what so ever is a threat to us,
> ...



If you don't eat it, it can't harm you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> I'll put it flatly. It isn't what you eat, it's how much you eat. You can eat so much you overwhelm your body...





Pogo said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



While advertising may be to convince you to buy something, whether or not you do it is up to you.  The advertisement itself doesn't make you buy it.  Your decision does.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



I wish they would go after the deadbeat dads so the rest of us that didn't get the pussy wouldn't be forced to pay for the results of the one that did and now isn't doing  his part. 

Let the dads invest in their own families.  That's what I do.  Nothing wrong with expecting others to do the same and saying no when they don't.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > I'll put it flatly. It isn't what you eat, it's how much you eat. You can eat so much you overwhelm your body...
> ...


All decisions are influenced by factors outside of your mind. If those factors consist of only advertising, your mind is made up before you even realize it. In essence a true assessment of the facts is much too difficult to investigate in order to make a snap decision.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The decision whether or not to buy is up to you.  Saying anything other than that shows you are easily influenced.  Knowing what you believe on other topics is proof.  Some of us think for ourselves.  You admit someone or something else does it for you.  How sad to be such a simple minded jerkoff.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


A decision made with a lack of information or in the absence of information is not up to you. You have to eat. That is not in question. The food companies purposefully hide everything they legally can.  Your inability to understand that proves you have a dearth of intelligence.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

Uh, no. It's not fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight. Who writes this stuff ??


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Uh, no. It's not fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight. Who writes this stuff ??


People that know the food companies put addictive ingredients in your food.

The New Hidden Soda Sweetener Pt 1 - The Addictive New Ingredient Hiding in Your Food The Dr. Oz Show


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Uh, no. It's not fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight. Who writes this stuff ??



Liberals.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, no. It's not fair to blame junk food companies for people being overweight. Who writes this stuff ??
> ...



How do you know?


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 22, 2014)

Considering the ONLY link I find about this "addictive sweetner" is at the doctoroz website, I'll call bullshit on this.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Got lucky enough to see an article and investigated it.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

airplanemechanic said:


> Considering the ONLY link I find about this "addictive sweetner" is at the doctoroz website, I'll call bullshit on this.


Doesnt matter what you call. The fact the tobacco company got caught putting addictive chemicals in their cigarettes should make you realize this is real issue.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



I mean, how can you tell which companies are doing this?


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I wish they would go after the deadbeat dads so the rest of us that didn't get the pussy wouldn't be forced to pay ....




Now you're bragging about the fact that you can't and never have gotten any? Pathetic.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Pretty much all of them do. They all use the same ingredients with a couple thrown in to produce a patent.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Ahh.. so it's not like they're being deceptive or anything? Then what's the issue?


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I think I mentioned they are being deceptive. Have you ever seen a food label that mentioned any of the ingredients in their food products are addictive?  France makes it mandatory now.

Processed Foods and Addiction - 3 Things That Are Making You Fat


"Scientists have known for years that sugar is highly addictive. Sugar may be the most addictive substance, similar to a drug because of the effect it has on pleasure centers of the brain.* Did you know there are fifty different names for sugars used in processed foods*?"


----------



## Theowl32 (Nov 23, 2014)

It is almost as though Coke and Pepsi and McDonald's were founded in the mid 90s. No, many junk food products have been around for over 100 years.

The main cause for kids becoming more obese (other than their personal choices) is the amount of time being spent on the Internet and playing video games. Just sitting for a pro longed period of time can have devastating effects on the body long term. 

Sedentary behavior is the bigger cause for obesity "epidemic." 

Of course this has more to do with personal responsibility and being accountable. Two big things liberals despise about freedom. Hence their wishes for the nanny state.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 23, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> It is almost as though Coke and Pepsi and McDonald's were founded in the mid 90s. No, many junk food products have been around for over 100 years.
> 
> The main cause for kids becoming more obese (other than their personal choices) is the amount of time being spent on the Internet and playing video games. Just sitting for a pro longed period of time can have devastating effects on the body long term.
> 
> ...



People across all lines have been sedentary and not become obese. Secretaries, office workers, etc. The reason they're getting obese now is clearly revealed in countries who didn't have western style foods until recently, and their explosion in obesity afterwords. It's the food. It's specially formulated to be addictive and in the process is also unhealthy. While personal choices play their part, it's not the primary reason, nor is our sedentary lifestyle. It's the food. China didn't have an obesity problem until they got western style foods via McDonald's and the like.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Yep.The point is, it's easy enough to avoid those foods if you want to. The obesity problem isn't caused by deceptive food vendors.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> People across all lines have been sedentary and not become obese. Secretaries, office workers, etc. The reason they're getting obese now is clearly revealed in countries who didn't have western style foods until recently, and their explosion in obesity afterwords. It's the food. It's specially formulated to be addictive and in the process is also unhealthy. While personal choices play their part, it's not the primary reason, nor is our sedentary lifestyle. It's the food. China didn't have an obesity problem until they got western style foods via McDonald's and the like.



If you are human ... You were born addicted to sugars and fats. If you eat too many sugars and fats you will get fat. Go ahead and blame food companies for stuffing your face with Moon Pies and washing them down with RC Cola ... It will probably help you lose weight.

.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Exactly.  Not one bit of food that is bad for you can cause you harm if you don't eat it.  Those who choose to do so on a regular basis want to blame what's in it as if what's in it could get in their system without THEM sticking it in their mouth.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> It is almost as though Coke and Pepsi and McDonald's were founded in the mid 90s. No, many junk food products have been around for over 100 years.
> 
> The main cause for kids becoming more obese (other than their personal choices) is the amount of time being spent on the Internet and playing video games. Just sitting for a pro longed period of time can have devastating effects on the body long term.
> 
> ...



When you are fat and go to the doctor ... They tell you to get more exercise and eat better ... Not to blame McDonalds.

.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > It is almost as though Coke and Pepsi and McDonald's were founded in the mid 90s. No, many junk food products have been around for over 100 years.
> ...



Not one bit of that type of food can make you obese unless the  PERSON sticks it in his/her mouth.  It can't become additive unless the PERSON sticks it in his/her mouth.   That being the case, it boils down to what the person does.  I'm not addicted to illegal drugs because I CHOOSE not to use them.  The existence of something doesn't cause the addition.  The USE of it does. 

Obesity in China isn't because of the food.  It's because the Chinese people EAT it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Perhaps the government should put a warning about the addictive nature when issuing social welfare programs to those that couldn't make any more by working based on their skills.


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > It is almost as though Coke and Pepsi and McDonald's were founded in the mid 90s. No, many junk food products have been around for over 100 years.
> ...


China did not have an obesity problem until they embraced capitalism, and got to eat three meals a day.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 23, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > People across all lines have been sedentary and not become obese. Secretaries, office workers, etc. The reason they're getting obese now is clearly revealed in countries who didn't have western style foods until recently, and their explosion in obesity afterwords. It's the food. It's specially formulated to be addictive and in the process is also unhealthy. While personal choices play their part, it's not the primary reason, nor is our sedentary lifestyle. It's the food. China didn't have an obesity problem until they got western style foods via McDonald's and the like.
> ...



If you eat more than you utilize and burn off you'll get fat. Eat 3000 cals a day but only burn off 1000, 2000's going to storage in the body, usually as fat. But fat, protein, and carbs burn at different rates. Think it's protein, carbs, then fat will be burned off in order. 

Food today has so many calories, so much fat, salt, and sugar that's it's literally impossible to burn it off unless a competetive athlete of some kind. Single McDonald's milkshake has I think 800 cals. That's an entire meal. And yet it's only the beverage part of a McDonald's meal. And since it's almost entirely sugar, which'll turn into fat inside the body, if you're drinking that every day plus all the other crap it isn't difficult to see how you're gonna get fat. As illustrated well in "Supersize Me." 

Eating in the US has become a recreational activity and stress mangement activity. We're under so much stress in our society from any number of factors than managing that stress via pleasure is what many do. Some exercise, some drink, some eat, some have lots of sex. But when a society overvalues the wrong things, and undervalues the right things, as we do in the US, imbalances are created. Instead of encouraging bodily pleasure and intimacy we demonize it. Bereft of such a basic human need as touch and intimate contact we turn to alternatives not demonized, like eating and subtance abuse.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Perhaps the government should put a warning about the addictive nature when issuing social welfare programs to those that couldn't make any more by working based on their skills.



Hell ... It would do wonders for my blood pressure if the government restricted junk food from EBT cards. Sitting in line behind a fat person who uses food stamps and whatnot ... I will admit it really pisses me of when all they have in their basket is junk food and Koolaid and they are fat as hell.

.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> If you eat more than you utilize and burn off you'll get fat. Eat 3000 cals a day but only burn off 1000, 2000's going to storage in the body, usually as fat. But fat, protein, and carbs burn at different rates. Think it's protein, carbs, then fat will be burned off in order.
> 
> Food today has so many calories, so much fat, salt, and sugar that's it's literally impossible to burn it off unless a competetive athlete of some kind. Single McDonald's milkshake has I think 800 cals. That's an entire meal. And yet it's only the beverage part of a McDonald's meal. And since it's almost entirely sugar, which'll turn into fat inside the body, if you're drinking that every day plus all the other crap it isn't difficult to see how you're gonna get fat. As illustrated well in "Supersize Me."
> 
> Eating in the US has become a recreational activity and stress mangement activity. We're under so much stress in our society from any number of factors than managing that stress via pleasure is what many do. Some exercise, some drink, some eat, some have lots of sex. But when a society overvalues the wrong things, and undervalues the right things, as we do in the US, imbalances are created. Instead of encouraging bodily pleasure and intimacy we demonize it. Bereft of such a basic human need as touch and intimate contact we turn to alternatives not demonized, like eating and subtance abuse.



That is an example of how civilization is killing you.

I often wonder whether or not you just need to move out of the city and start living more than you sit around and think. A rural lifestyle can sure help you burn far more than 3500 calories in a day ... The food from your garden is better for you ... And at the end of the day, people are more interested in their own sex-life than anyone else's.

.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



If the PERSON doesn't choose to drink that milkshake, it doesn't matter how many calories it has.  The choice comes first.  Without the choice of the PERSON, caloric intake doesn't happen.


----------



## Theowl32 (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



Again, this is one of those topics where the democrats use their stupid voting base as the moronic pawns they are.

They disguise it as though they actually care about the kids. They use the tired ole narrative that it is evil white corporate right wing America. They use that narrative to push for more control over the lives of the people. Taking choices away where ever and whenever they can. All under the guise of caring.

The hopelessly brainwashed hacks on the left fall right in line and respond to their marching orders.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


That doesnt even make sense. How can you avoid the foods if you are unaware they are addictive?


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > It is almost as though Coke and Pepsi and McDonald's were founded in the mid 90s. No, many junk food products have been around for over 100 years.
> ...


Why would they tell you to blame McDonalds? What good would that do?


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


The choice is not made in a vacuum. Its impossible to make a choice without considering prior knowledge..Thats why they call it a decision. All decisions are shaped by what you know.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


The fact you had to deflect to another subject makes your argument less credible.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


The fact you are conversing with me belies your words.  Like I said. you are free to disregard since you are emotionally invested.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 23, 2014)

Just my take on the whole bit,  "junk food" companies are in business to make MONEY, the nutrition of people who may indulge in the product isn't a consideration, its about the MONEY.
I personally do NOT drink "soft drinks"  I do NOT spend my money at the fast "food" shop.
There is the consideration of genetics, I recognize that it ( because of genetics ) may be simpler for me to avoid some of the "bad food choices" than others with different genetic predisposition ( obesity... or? ) 

For both health reasons, & political reasons, I most strongly recommend that everyone simply stop drinking the "soft drink" products & never spend their money at the fast "food" shop(s), there is both a political & health component to my suggestion.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



The addictive qualities of the products and services we consume vary wildly, and it's a subjective judgement at best. As long as the vendors are clear as to the contents of their products, it's ridiculous to require them to warn the consumer of every possible misuse of their product. Grown ups can make these kinds of decisions for themselves. Really.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No its not ridiculous to require them to warn the customer. Eating is not misuse and yes like other things including drugs and cigarettes they have warnings on them and require to by law regarding misuse.

The question is not whether we should have them label the food with warnings, the question in the OP asks is it fair to blame them.  I say yes since they are purposefully adding unnecessary ingredients that are addictive without warning us and advertising to push the products.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Read the responses from those on the left.  They have been convinced it's not their fault that choosing to eat such things cause obesity.  They blame a company for making what, if they chose not to eat it, wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Grownups can except for those on the left that have to find an excuse for what amounts to a choice they made to eat something.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Maybe instead of reading responses you should read the OP. Your lack of reading comprehension seems to be the major issue with your assessment of the posts on this thread.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 23, 2014)

Or course it's fair to blame the companies!

I mean, after all, personal responsibility is such an outdated, downright quaint concept....


----------



## Theowl32 (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



I have most of those wastes of socialist shit, who are nothing but pawns for their democrat gods, on ignore. They are pointless to debate and so therefore pointless to read or listen to.

Could not care less what those morons have to say.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Theowl32 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



They constantly yap about choice and when they make one to eat that crap and it causes obesity, they blame anything they can for what they chose to do.  I care what they say, not for the content, because they're quick to want to create more bureaucracy that if they would accept responsibility for their choices, we wouldn't need.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the government should put a warning about the addictive nature when issuing social welfare programs to those that couldn't make any more by working based on their skills.
> ...



As long as those voting for a living are allowed to use EBT to buy such crap, we'll continue to pay for the healthcare they think they have a right to have.  Those of us that work for a living are expected to maintain those that vote for one and plenty of bleeding hearts allow it to happen.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



And when people know better but make bad decisions, they want to blame anyone but themselves for having made it.  Not one bit of junk food can be bad for your health unless you choose to eat it.  If you do choose, blame yourself and no one or nothing else but the choice and the person making it.    I know cigarettes are bad for me, therefore, I make the choice not to smoke them.  Marketing had nothing to do with it.  Witnessing what can happen to people based on personal experience did.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



That you can't see how things relate makes you just another moron on the left.  You're the one that said things don't operate in a vacuum.    Not being able to argue a principle and apply it to other things shows your low level of intellect.  I'm not surprised.  Your people are like that on lots of things.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



I'm not conversing with you.  I'm telling you what it is.  You simply aren't listening and keep yapping like what comes out of your mouth amounts to anything boy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Maybe you should listen to what I'm telling you and learn something boy.  You seem to have trouble grasping simple concepts.


----------



## Asclepias (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I would listen if you knew what you were talking about. Its obvious your grasp of the subject is tenuous at best.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't want any laws passed or anything like that, but everyone should be made aware....

Sugar IS ADDICTIVE....and it gives us "feel good" responses after eating it, such as a burst of energy. stimulates our "happy hormones'' as well I believe.

And I did see a Discovery Chanel program I believe that showed the Food industry, many decades ago, when "Fat Content" and trans fats, saturated fats etc were the BIG BAD GUY that processed food producers removed the bad fats from their products and advertised such on their products, but the initial run of these type of goods just didn't taste good or satisfy the customers as they once did so these food producers added sugar to their products to make them taste better while still being able to advertise that they were fat free, of Half the Fat...


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



No you wouldn't.  It's not in your nature boy.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Nov 23, 2014)

Care4all said:


> I don't want any laws passed or anything like that, but everyone should be made aware....
> 
> Sugar IS ADDICTIVE....and it gives us "feel good" responses after eating it, such as a burst of energy. stimulates our "happy hormones'' as well I believe.
> 
> And I did see a Discovery Chanel program I believe that showed the Food industry, many decades ago, when "Fat Content" and trans fats, saturated fats etc were the BIG BAD GUY that processed food producers removed the bad fats from their products and advertised such on their products, but the initial run of these type of goods just didn't taste good or satisfy the customers as they once did so these food producers added sugar to their products to make them taste better while still being able to advertise that they were fat free, of Half the Fat...



Look, who can't walk down the cookie aisle and think "Hmm those Double Stuffed Oreos are tasty , but probably not good for me"

I mean my God, I LOVE Oreos, but I eat 3 or 4 of them at a time, and usually that's all I get out of a bag. 

And I don't show up to Wal Mart, and climb on my motorized scooter because I'm too lazy to walk to get them either.

Same with prepackaged meals. Who the hell doesn't know by now that those things are unhealthy? Buy some ingredients and cook dinner once in awhile.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



The point that EBT should not be usable for junk/processed artificial food is absolutely valid and worthy.
But that will never happen.  Because it would require the same government that tells its citizenry that this crap is perfectly OK .....  to turn around and say 'your EBT card won't buy this because it's crap'.  And that would lay the collusion bare for all to see.  It would become too obvious even to the unwashed who controls the government, and neither one of them want that.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 24, 2014)

Pogo said:


> The point that EBT should not be usable for junk/processed artificial food is absolutely valid and worthy.
> But that will never happen.  Because it would require the same government that tells its citizenry that this crap is perfectly OK .....  to turn around and say 'your EBT card won't buy this because it's crap'.  And that would lay the collusion bare for all to see.  It would become too obvious even to the unwashed who controls the government, and neither one of them want that.



It would probably just take more time waiting in line while folks argue about items in their cart being covered.

I sat in line while a customer and cashier fought about the difference between instant oatmeal and 3 minute oat meal. I don't know for sure but I think the WIC program doesn't cover the instant type.

I offered to let the cashier ring up the instant with my stuff if they would just shut up and get back to business ... They looked at me like I was crazy.

.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The point that EBT should not be usable for junk/processed artificial food is absolutely valid and worthy.
> ...




Far as I know that's all automatically embedded in the UPC code.  They're supposed to ring the whole thing up, present the total, customer swipes EBT and then they get a remaining cash total for whatever EBT doesn't cover.  It shouldn't take anywhere near as long as, say, that clown who just has to pay by _check_...


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 25, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Using high fructose corn syrup to replace cane sugar is certainly the fault of manufacturers. They do it because it's cheap. They fill low fat foods with it and similar sugars to give it taste.



The government actually created one of the biggest eating problems when it told everyone that low fat diets were healthy and the way to lose weight.  Food manufacturers took that information and geared their products toward the lowf at crowd.  The problem is that low fat foods are filled with so much other crap that they do more harm than good.  Secondly, people moved away from eating protein and replaced much of their diet with carbs.  Carbs convert to sugar which if not used for energy in the short term are then converted to fat.  When we combine these couple of items with the fact that people do not exercise nearly as much as they used to, we get a bunch of fat asses.  This has become most noticeable with our kids, and once they become fat asses, it's difficult to reverse that.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



Many in the government already contradict themselves now.  You have certain elements within the government that tell you the choice a woman makes with her body should be no one else's business.  They support her right to choose whether to have a child or abort it.  If she makes a choice she can't afford, those same elements in government will tell you that even though you didn't have a say in her choice, you will be forced to be responsible for paying for it when she can't.   What's different with EBT and junk food?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The point that EBT should not be usable for junk/processed artificial food is absolutely valid and worthy.
> ...



I had to do that last Saturday.  Waited in line behind someone that wanted to talk to the manager about something not being covered.  When that manager didn't give her the answer she wanted, she asked to speak to another manager.   She turned to me and said "sorry".  I told her she was the reason I was having to wait and "you're welcome".  She had a puzzled look on her face.   Guess she didn't get what I meant about me having to pay for her groceries then wait because it apparently was covering enough things.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 25, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The point that EBT should not be usable for junk/processed artificial food is absolutely valid and worthy.
> ...



According to government a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body ... As long as it doesn't include a 44 oz. Big Gulp from Circle K.

Edit:
For those who may not understand the regional reference ... A 44 oz. Big Gulp from Circle K ... Is a super-size soft drink sold at a convenience store.

.


----------



## Alex. (Nov 25, 2014)

I am responsible for what I put in my body, to know what ingredients are in what I eat and how they will effect me.I am responsible to maintain  my health through exercise and clean living. In fact I am scheduled for my daily strength training and aerobic exercise.

I will do so after the completion on my donuts and potato chip lunch and a hefty drag on the chest busters I smoke.


No matter what I do I cannot blame anyone but myself.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
According to those who claim to support pro choice, people should have freedom and liberty unless it's something the left doesn't think we should do using that they are looking out for us as the reason.  That's why I don't call them pro choice.  I call them what they are, pro abortion.  When the only choice they support by calling themselves that allows a woman to choose to kill her unborn child, there is no difference despite their attempts to make it appear that way.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 25, 2014)

Lookey, being "Progressive" means you never have to say:  "I'm responsible...."


----------



## Alex. (Nov 25, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Lookey, being "Progressive" means you never have to say:  "I'm responsible...."


and where does that get you? Gastrointestinal surgery and it does not matter who is to blame.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 2, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Why you asking me?  You just agreed with my point.


----------

