None needed because the experience is there knowing the modicum of work it takes to not be fat
also imagine thinking psychology is a valid subject
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
What should America do about the childhood obesity epidemic?
- Thread starter hal9000
- Start date
also imagine thinking psychology is a valid subject
Has anyone brought up that it's the parents responsibility what their kids eat, not the governments?
40 years ago I took a nutrition class at Cal Poly, it was an easy elective and a great way for an engineering student to meet chicks. I remember them saying that poor men and rich women tend to have less weight-related issues and obesity than poor women and rich men.
The rationale was, poor men burn lots of calories at work, rich women play tennis and work out at the gym, poor women eat poorly and get little to no exercise, and rich men work a zillion hours a week behind desks. Prob still some truth to this idea today.
100% calories in and calories out.
The rationale was, poor men burn lots of calories at work, rich women play tennis and work out at the gym, poor women eat poorly and get little to no exercise, and rich men work a zillion hours a week behind desks. Prob still some truth to this idea today.
100% calories in and calories out.
When M Oboama tried to improve the food at school, the right wingers and the food vendors lost their sh!t
Even children? If this junk food is poison, as you called it, should a child of any age be able to buy it? Should the makers of this "poison" be allowed to actively push their addictive and harmful products on children?
Big Mike had some good ideas, but you’re mischaracterizing the argument
however, at this point the waste is worth it
Right, and food manufacturers are not responsible for pushing processed junk food and addictive substances in the name of profit.
It's funny how the whole "personal responsibility" thing that libertarians like to tout, stops when a person works for a corporation. Magically, the responsibility is not a thing anymore.
Always punch down, like a good little boi.
once again . . . You’re confused. obesogenic foods are foods are thought to encourage additional fat storage in the absence of added calories. Many processed foods are accused of being this way, and this has been proven to be false in the context of a caloric deficit. This is different than obesogens, which are specific chemicals, even though processed foods may contain them.“Foods are the main source of obesogens. Some obesogens occur naturally in food, but most are environmental chemicals, entering food as a foreign substance, whether in the form of contaminants or additives, and they are used in a large amount in highly processed food.” — www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Also, here’s a peer reviewed metabolic ward study (gold standard) showing a higher thermic effect (calories burned from digestion) with the digestion of processed meal replacement shakes and bars compared to whole foods, suggesting that your body may actually work harder to digest something processed.
Lower Postprandial Thermogenic Response to an Unprocessed Whole Food Meal Compared to an Iso-Energetic/Macronutrient Meal Replacement in Young Women: A Single-Blind Randomized Cross-Over Trial
In contrast to ultra-processed foods that are associated with increased weight gain and obesity risk, nutritionally engineered dietary supplements, including meal replacement (MR) bars and shakes, are generally promoted as healthy. Limited data is available ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Seriously, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Truly hilarious how deep you had to dig to come up with something that sounds halfway supportive of your ridiculous position. Meal replacement…once again . . . You’re confused. obesogenic foods are foods are thought to encourage additional fat storage in the absence of added calories. Many processed foods are accused of being this way, and this has been proven to be false in the context of a caloric deficit. This is different than obesogens, which are specific chemicals, even though processed foods may contain them.
Also, here’s a peer reviewed metabolic ward study (gold standard) showing a higher thermic effect (calories burned from digestion) with the digestion of processed meal replacement shakes and bars compared to whole foods, suggesting that your body may actually work harder to digest something processed.
Lower Postprandial Thermogenic Response to an Unprocessed Whole Food Meal Compared to an Iso-Energetic/Macronutrient Meal Replacement in Young Women: A Single-Blind Randomized Cross-Over Trial
In contrast to ultra-processed foods that are associated with increased weight gain and obesity risk, nutritionally engineered dietary supplements, including meal replacement (MR) bars and shakes, are generally promoted as healthy. Limited data is available ...
Seriously, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
I am definitely embarrassed to have participated in this discussion and will now stop.
I found that article in less than a minute.
What exactly is my position that you think is wrong? That thermodynamics exists?
That's a bummer, was looking forward to seeing the actual proof of all the garbage you've been claiming on this thread. Oh wait . . . . That proof doesn't existMeal replacement…
What’s remarkable is how, for someone who claims to be a scientist, uncritical you are. This guy for instance…I found that article in less than a minute.
What exactly is my position that you think is wrong? That thermodynamics exists?
That's a bummer, was looking forward to seeing the actual proof of all the garbage you've been claiming on this thread. Oh wait . . . . That proof doesn't exist
Did he disprove the result dramatized in Supersize Me?
He showed that McDonald’s is not so bad if you’re very careful and make the best possible choices there. Have you ever tried a McDonald’s salad? They taste like sh!t. People don’t go to McDonald’s to be careful. They go there because it’s fast, convenient, highly predictable, and it hits all the big ticket taste cravings, namely fat, sweet, and salty. His story is popular because people love to rationalize their bad choices.
I don't know how you raised your son through grade school and middle school but my kids had a healthy enough lunch that I made, done and packed by 6:25 am while my wife was getting the little fvckers and herself ready for school. Then out the door for me at 7:40 to pick up Chuckles, and the first out at our home break.
I won't say that the little fuckwits didn't swap with their schoolmates but I know what they left the house with.
What is your personal experience?
Add 40lbs. and a little hair and guess which poster that guy looks like.What’s remarkable is how, for someone who claims to be a scientist, uncritical you are. This guy for instance…
Did he disprove the result dramatized in Supersize Me?
He showed that McDonald’s is not so bad if you’re very careful and make the best possible choices there. Have you ever tried a McDonald’s salad? They taste like sh!t. People don’t go to McDonald’s to be careful. They go there because it’s fast, convenient, highly predictable, and it hits all the big ticket taste cravings, namely fat, sweet, and salty. His story is popular because people love to rationalize their bad choices.
No . . . . Because that wasn't the point. In Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock used every opportunity to optimize caloric intake, such as making extra trips to the soda machine, even to the point of force feeding himself and vomiting. It was a funny experiment but ultimately not realistic. I don't think any of them disagree with the results of Super Size Me given the amount of calories consumed. The point of the guys in the links I posted was to show that calories in/out is still the driving factor, regardless of food choice. And that you can still maintain or even lose weight eating processed foods if your intake is not excessive. All they did was show the other side of the same coin.
No, I haven't. Either way it's irrelevant to the broader point. You can eat whatever you want and stay lean, you just can't eat as much as you want.
Of course. It's a cheap, fast and high caloric load with minimal satiation, which keeps people coming back for more. All of which leads to excessive calorie intake.
That's part of it. However in the time between Paleo and Keto being popular, there was a lot of dogma about CICO being false and that choosing certain foods drives fat gain/loss independent of their caloric load. These guys set out to prove them wrong, and they did.
I’m very fortunate that at some point in my 30s cannabis went from an appetite enhancer (munchies) to an appetite killer. I don’t know why but I ain’t complaining.
I don’t mean it works like speed and I won’t eat for days if I’m constantly stoned. I just mean I can eat a normal modest dinner, get really baked, and have no further interest in food. I just don’t get the munchies whatsoever, whereas in my teens and 20s I would gorge myself at all hours with the munchies