Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › This is why America has the worst dieting regulations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This is why America has the worst dieting regulations - Page 7

post #91 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spareribs View Post
I'm not trying to be funny but if the weight problem in America increases, could this be a concern that it could knock the tilt of the Earth's axis ?
You mean like what the Chile earthquake did to shorten our days by 1.3 milliseconds? Perhaps if every overweight person jumped up and down at the exact time.

But seriously, the law of conservation of mass, so NO.
post #92 of 170
I eat a bacon, ranch, and cheese sandwich every day for lunch. So that isn't much worse is it?
post #93 of 170
how about this bad boy - only 8000 calories.

post #94 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post
I ate similar to that in college and still alive and an average weight for my height :P
Average weight for height =/= healthy.
post #95 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
how about this bad boy - only 8000 calories.


Still hard to beat the In & Out 100x100.
post #96 of 170

And may the lord have mercy upon their arteries, and save them from atherosclerotic plaque.
post #97 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
how about this bad boy - only 8000 calories.

only 8k...hoot. Don't think I even take in a 1/20th of that per day. I'm hungry right now alright...
post #98 of 170
i am definitely going to have to try that double down on monday, it looks so tasty...gonna have to see if i can find some of that tasty looking chocolate covered bacon to follow it up with....
post #99 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
...snip...



It's pretty clear that you neglected to fully read or did not understand what I said. It's as though you're having a conversation with what you imagined me to have said, even after I corrected your ample misinterpretations. My original statement merely echoed Schlosser's examination of the fast/processed food industry, specifically the fact that such food derives a great deal of its flavor from laboratory additives. With the exception of smoke flavoring, not once did I assert or imply that these additives are unhealthy in and of themselves, and there's absolutely no room for misinterpretation of my subsequent clarification.

Regarding my discussion of epigenetics, allow me to simply quote a few sources so that there will (hopefully) be no misunderstanding. I will bold a few key words you seem to have missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Transgenerational epigenetic observations

Marcus Pembrey and colleagues also observed in the Överkalix study that the paternal (but not maternal) grandsons of Swedish boys who were exposed during preadolescence to famine in the 19th century were less likely to die of cardiovascular disease; if food was plentiful then diabetes mortality in the grandchildren increased, suggesting that this was a transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. The opposite effect was observed for females -- the paternal (but not maternal) granddaughters of women who experienced famine while in the womb (and their eggs were being formed) lived shorter lives on average.
The following is an expanded description of the above study:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah.edu
Don't Count Dad Out

So if a pregnant mother's diet can affect the child's epigenetic outcome, can dad's diet do the same? Quite possibly, according to scientists who delved into the well-kept, historical records of annual harvests from a small Swedish community.

These records showed that food availability between the ages of nine and twelve for the paternal grandfather affected the lifespan of his grandchildren. But not in the way you might think.

Shortage of food for the grandfather was associated with extended lifespan of his grandchildren. Food abundance, on the other hand, was associated with a greatly shortened lifespan of the grandchildren. Early death was the result of either diabetes or heart disease. Could it be that during this critical period of development for the grandfather, epigenetic mechanisms are "capturing" nutritional information about the environment to pass on to the next generation?
Finishing up:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superpredator
Not sure where you got the idea that I think chemicals are inherently bad.
From your initial post:
"The backyard tomato that tastes amazing is more nutritious than a supermarket tomato--our taste buds are actually looking out for us"
How in god's name do you infer that I believe chemicals are inherently bad from a statement about tomatoes? A homegrown heirloom tomato will generally be more nutritious than a typical supermarket tomato. Source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
Our taste buds dont have to look out for us -but you obviously think they need to.
WHAT? SERIOUSLY? Go drink some bleach then.

Apologies to all for entertaining such an inane discussion in what should have been a pretty lighthearted thread about a funny sandwich.
post #100 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superpredator View Post

It's pretty clear that you neglected to fully read or did not understand what I said. It's as though you're having a conversation with what you imagined me to have said, even after I corrected your ample misinterpretations. My original statement merely echoed Schlosser's examination of the fast/processed food industry, specifically the fact that such food derives a great deal of its flavor from laboratory additives. With the exception of smoke flavoring, not once did I assert or imply that these additives are unhealthy in and of themselves, and there's absolutely no room for misinterpretation of my subsequent clarification.

Regarding my discussion of epigenetics, allow me to simply quote a few sources so that there will (hopefully) be no misunderstanding. I will bold a few key words you seem to have missed.



The following is an expanded description of the above study:



Finishing up:



How in god's name do you infer that I believe chemicals are inherently bad from a statement about tomatoes? A homegrown heirloom tomato will generally be more nutritious than a typical supermarket tomato. Source.



WHAT? SERIOUSLY? Go drink some bleach then.

Apologies to all for entertaining such an inane discussion in what should have been a pretty lighthearted thread about a funny sandwich.
Simply Put, your statement about tomatoes is pretty clear. Just exactly what are they looking out for?

As for the genetic study, I actually ended up reading the whole thing. While I admit that I've never come across Overkalix, It was a very interesting read but not pertinent to this case. Reason being that the type of food that the individuals ate were never in question, rather the abundance of foodstuffs. Checking Overkalix's economy at the time, the study, unfortunately, offers very little in terms of the "what you eat" question and genetics, but obviously it is a very good one for epigenetics.

The issue I have with the study is that they didn't go beyond the abundance of food. If we take the study in a place like the US where food abundance is not directly connected to (or at the very least very far removed from our economy), then it is easy to show that the abundance of food can have health effects. But you cannot do that in a province where food staples do affect the economy. Perhaps the farmers were unable to afford medicine during times of famine and during times of abundance, they were able to afford medicine for their kids. Not only is this a possibility but it can also lead to the subsequent generational changes (the medicine may have certain health effects that can alter genes). The issue I have here is that there are too many possible environmental factors that could affect or mutate a person's DNA. I guess to put it simply, the abundance of food doesn't simply mean the abundance of food, rather it leads to a whole slew of environmental changes in a particular region. -Thats how I would argue against overkalix as an example of transgenerational epigenetics.
post #101 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superpredator View Post
no problem, but that picture made me laugh pretty hard.
post #102 of 170
Blame the consumers not the producers, as long as there is demand there will be supply.
post #103 of 170
OMG!!!! I am coming to America!

How did you guys make bread from chicken - is yeast added to the chook flour before baking or is a self raising agent not necessary?
post #104 of 170
Scary, sometimes junk food scares me. Vcoheda, I wouldn't eat that unless I was really starving and had no other choice.

Does food have to be big? The Indian kitchen has really good recipes for filling your stomach which include a lot of herbs without over sizing the physical largeness of the meals.
post #105 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenixdown110 View Post

Still hard to beat the In & Out 100x100.
Thanks for the enlightenment.. so the group that ordered this actually finished eating it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › This is why America has the worst dieting regulations