July 24, 2012

"Shopping for a new car, I see that they all look bloated and sloppy, bulkier than need be."

"Restaurants serve mega-portions, sodas are bigger. And have you been on a NYC subway lately? The number of people taking up two seats has increased exponentially. There's nothing patriotic about eating and drinking yourself sick, but our cars and toasters have that same look. America the insatiable. And those of us lucky enough to have health insurance are paying the brunt of other people's overindulgence."

A comment on a NYT column about the proposed NYC ban on extra-large sodas. The column takes the attitude of mocking the "American soft-drink industry" for making "appeals to patriotism" in its lobbying against the ban. The column sounds the anti-business and pro-good-health themes the NYT typically finds fit to print. The comment reveals the dark side of those themes: lowly disgust for citizens with obesity and an irrational fear that the overweight are intruding on the rest of us and draining us of our wealth.

198 comments:

cubanbob said...

Fuunt how those NYT moron's are against heavy people because they might become a burden on society but are adamant in support 'entitlements' for those who actually are being a burden on society, the democrat core of welfare moochers.

ndspinelli said...

When the only nonprotected class are fat people[fat jokes and ridicule are politicall correct] then this is the outcome

Paddy O said...

"And those of us lucky enough to have health insurance are paying the brunt of other people's overindulgence."

Food is the new sex.

What's the spending on AIDS research at these days? Just like with obesity, not all cases are due to behavioral choices, but the great percentage are.

Shall New York ban extramarital sex as well? How much would that save in health care costs. A huge amount, I would guess.

Why are sexual choices more privileged than beverage choices?

Bob Ellison said...

The obese are rich with flesh. Tax flesh! It could be a progressive tax, based on BMI. Al Gore and Michael Moore probably wouldn't like that, but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi might.

Q said...

I don't know what the solution is - I don't support laws, of all things - but I am tired of Americans being so damn fat.

I'm a six foot tall guy with a BMI of 21, and finding clothes that fit properly is amazingly difficult.

A BMI of 21 is supposed to be normal, but in this country it's concentration-camp-skinny.

TosaGuy said...

This asshat apparently has never seen your average family car built before 1970.

John said...

I must not be frequenting the same restaurants as Althouse. Portions are getting smaller - only the bill is getting larger.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Add to your list: Mistaking aesthetic questions for moral ones.

That said, I'm tired of my insurance premiums going to fix the overtaxed heating coils of your bloated toaster!

TosaGuy said...

"The obese are rich with flesh. Tax flesh! It could be a progressive tax, based on BMI. Al Gore and Michael Moore probably wouldn't like that, but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi might."

When you go to your mandatory Obamacare annual physical, you can be assessed a calorie storage tax.

traditionalguy said...

At last, a job for the Death Panels. Cull out the obese and shoot them...but use a high powered rifle to get through all of the blubber!

As for those once obese and now dieted down to skinny, take them out and shoot them too...they cannot escape justice that easily.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I guess the commentor has never seen a 1949 Buick Roadmaster or an old Chevy

Those are big roomy and bloated. I WANT one.

Bob Ellison said...

Q said "I am tired of Americans being so damn fat."

This is the essential sentiment. I don't want these people to be the way they are. Make them different.

edutcher said...

The Lefties, including the Gray Lady, have encouraged people to make bad decisions and attitudes that render them lazy and apathetic, that will put them in thrall to the Welfare State.

But they don't like it if they have to look at them.

PS Tosa is right, however, about car sizes and people have been resisting their betters' demand that they ride in what The Blonde calls rolling coffins and prefer the roomy SUVs

Dust Bunny Queen said...

At last, a job for the Death Panels. Cull out the obese and shoot them...but use a high powered rifle to get through all of the blubber!

There are NO fat people in North Korea. Success!!!

Pogo said...

A modest proposal:

We could cull the fatties for their blubber, and use it for fuel.

Win win. It's green, renewable, and it brings new J-O-B-S.

Chip S. said...

Three simple steps to justifying government regulation of your food and beverage intake:

1. Disallow consideration of weight or other health conditions in the determination of insurance premiums.

2. Denounce anyone who opposes step 1 as lacking empathy for the overweight community, as well as being ignorant of the genetic component of obseity.

3. Observe that community rating of health insurance means that thin people subsidize fat ones, which means those goddam fatsos have gotta be stopped from eating so damn much crap.

And yet people say the term "liberal fascism" is over the top.

Ken said...

Q,

I am tired of Americans being so damn fat.

The obvious and correct response to this is: Fuck You! Having trouble finding clothes? Tough. Start a clothing line to target people of your size. Unwilling to do that? Then STFU.

Don't like the way people look? Tough. Stop looking at other people.

Get over yourself.

Shanna said...

Funny, I've just been thinking all the cars look kind of tiny. I'm looking to get something a little bigger than my compact car next time.

Pogo said...

There's a story in there somewhere, about Capt. Bloomie and his vain pursuit of the Great White Whale.

It'll come to me.

traditionalguy said...

As to the sudden resurgence of bulbous chromed out front grills displaying opulence on the once shrinking American mid size cars, the answer is that is what Chinese buyers want.

All cars must now appeal to the Chinese market that is potentially gigantic and still growing in demand.

Hurray for the Chinese who are rescuing consumerism faster than the Liberal prudes can shrink it in the USA. Bloomberg would be laughed at in China, because he is a legalistic fool.

Ann Althouse said...

"I must not be frequenting the same restaurants as Althouse."

That's a quote, not me saying that.

Q said...

This is the essential sentiment. I don't want these people to be the way they are. Make them different


Ah, shut up. I feel that way about all sorts of people, and so do you. Liberals, for instance. Muslims. Those on intergenerational welfare. Career criminals. Politicians of all stripes. (Arguably they are a subset of 'career criminals') I could go on. I don't want those people to be the way they are, and neither do you.


Everybody in the world wants other people to be different from the way they are. The worst offenders in this regard, amusingly enough, are libertarians.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

You didn't get fat on your own.

Somebody helped you.

For example, somebody published exactly wrong nutrition advice, about 30 years ago.

Pogo said...

I have said it here before:

The recession/depression will produce as one of its unintended side effects, a decline in the obesity rate.

This will occur because people can no longer afford to buy the amount of food they did before.

But the CDC and US Govt. and NYC will claim it was their efforts and laws that caused it.

Americans are fat primarily because they have been able to afford huge amounts of food. No other society has come close to the low percentage of income spent on food.

Obama fixed that problem.

Q said...

The obvious and correct response to this is: Fuck You!


How rational.

Don't like the way people look? Tough. Stop looking at other people.

Hit a nerve, have I, Fatty?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Pogo said...

Americans are fat primarily because they have been able to afford huge amounts of food.


Exactly wrong, Pogo, but . . . a good example of confusing correlation and causation. Thanks for that.

Scott said...

Cars look bigger because of safety standards. They have higher beltlines and more crush space than they did in the 1990s so that the driver and riders are more likely to survive a crash. But it's true, the style sucks.

I'm looking for another car now. Although my current 2010 Honda Civic is adequate, I'm getting tired of the manual shift (maybe not as much a control freak as I was when I was younger). But the 2012 Civic tested badly in Consumer Reports (!) so I'm looking for something else. On the short list: VW Golf. Can't think of what else to consider at that price range. I want a hatchback, and there aren't many out there.

Pogo said...

No, not wrong.

Dietary advice was bad, to be sure.

As women moved into the workforce, more money was made, but fewer home meals were made. Convenience foods arose. The number of fast food restaurants skyrocketed.


Try this from, of all places, Mother Jones.

"But even among developed countries, our food spending is ultra-low: People in most European countries spend over 10 percent of their incomes on food. In fact, Americans spend less on food than people in any other country in the world. Even we Americans didn't always expect our food to be so cheap, though: Back in 1963, when Molly Orshansky, an employee of the Social Security Administration, created the nation's first poverty threshold, she simply tripled the cost of the FDA's "thrifty" food plan, since at the time most families spent about a third of their incomes on food. So how'd we end up spending just a fraction of that four decades later?"

wyo sis said...

I'm not gonna try it, you try it.
Give it to Obama.
That Obama, he'll tax it, he hates everything.

Bob Ellison said...

Q said Ah, shut up. I feel that way about all sorts of people, and so do you. Liberals, for instance. Muslims. Those on intergenerational welfare. Career criminals. Politicians of all stripes. (Arguably they are a subset of 'career criminals') I could go on. I don't want those people to be the way they are, and neither do you.

Everybody in the world wants other people to be different from the way they are. The worst offenders in this regard, amusingly enough, are libertarians.


Yes, true. Maybe you're just whining about the problem. I do it, too, as you rightly say. But lefties think there's something to be done. People can be molded into better humans! That's the Marxist philosophy.

Libertarians are the worst offenders? I think I'm pretty libertarian, though I'm registered as a Republican. I haven't seen a libertarian complaining about the way I or anyone else is. Just about what they do.

Rusty said...

Q said...
The obvious and correct response to this is: Fuck You!


How rational.

Don't like the way people look? Tough. Stop looking at other people.

Hit a nerve, have I, Fatty?


That's Mr. Fatty to you, slim.


Here. Take an-wv AdVill

(It's like it knows)

Pogo said...

Researcher Links Rising Tide Of Obesity To Food Prices

ScienceDaily (Jan. 5, 2004) —

"Obesity in the United States is in part an economic issue, according to a review paper on the relationship between poverty and obesity published in the January 2004 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The article suggests that the very low cost of energy-dense foods may be linked to rising obesity rates."

Rusty said...

All this talk about food has made me hungry.

Christopher in MA said...

I don't support laws, off all things - but. . .

You'd be happy if someone else would come up with a law against those damned fat bastards, though?

Guess what, Q? I'm fat. It's my own fault. I love to eat and drink. I have trouble finding clothes to fit me. I ought to diet. Perhaps I will. Perhaps, if I get energetic, I'll start a "Fat Fuck" line of clothes for people like me.

Until such time, you can rationalize your disgust anyway you want; that telltale "but" is the giveaway sign of the totalitarian in embryo.

Alex said...

These econo-boxes are for you plebs. I'm getting a Tesla S top of the line model for $97K. Hate me if you want!

Alex said...

Just wait until Apple gets into making cars.

Introducing the iCar - the amazing new vehicle only from Apple.

Christopher in MA said...

Frankly, Alex, I'd settle for a sugar mommy buying me a Paragon Panther.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Pogo, you write as if you are unaware of Gary Taube's work, or Volek/Phinney.

The cause of obesity is very very close to being exactly identified. All that is lacking is the right types of studies.

But it is already clear what the answer is going to be, and it is nothing like what the 'experts' you site, are saying.

You'll see, though it may take another 10 years.

ricpic said...

The beautiful people WILL NOT TOLERATE fat and happy!!!

EMD said...

Where did Reubens find all those models?

Q said...

You'd be happy if someone else would come up with a law against those damned fat bastards, though?


That's a stupid response to somebody saying that they don't support laws against those dammed fat bastards.

I would be happy if self-indulgent Americans learned a little self-restraint. Those protruding bellies are part and parcel of the lack of responsibility in all aspects of American life. The sort of people who lack the self-control to eat a little less will never have the self-control to restrain government spending. It's all about immediate gratification.

Everything comes down to the character of the people. The fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy.

Pogo said...

"Pogo, you write as if you are unaware of Gary Taube's work, or Volek/Phinney."

No, I am aware of them.

The "lower fraction of food spending" is complementary to the "wrong foods" idea. They are not mutually exclusive, but additive, perhaps multiplicative.

We are not at odds, unless you dismiss the idea that how much we can afford to spend on food might impact how much of it we buy.

ricpic said...

Scott - Subarus are the greatest. I'm on my third. Comfortable, reliable, fantastic field of vision, very low maintenance even at high mileage. I'm a Forester fan but the Impreza is hatchbacky, I think. Try 'em.

Alex said...

Q - doesn't it disgust you to see all those bloated fat asses everywhere? Every time I want to vomit.

Q said...

The cause of obesity is very very close to being exactly identified.


You don't think that consuming more calories than your body burns each day is the cause of obesity?

Christopher in MA said...

The sort of people who lack the self-control to eat a little less will never have the self-control to restrain government spending.

And you think mine was a stupid response?

Shanna said...

Scott - Subarus are the greatest. I'm on my third. Comfortable, reliable, fantastic field of vision, very low maintenance even at high mileage. I'm a Forester fan but the Impreza is hatchbacky, I think. Try 'em.

I have also heard good things about Subarus. I will be in the market in a year or two (hopefully!). I think the Rav4's are cute, but I don't know much about them.

You don't think that consuming more calories than your body burns each day is the cause of obesity?

True, but grossly simplistic. It's not a simple math problem, because the things you eat change the way your body burns calories. And not everyone is the same. You should read Taubes book, it has a whole section on this.

Pogo said...

"You don't think that consuming more calories than your body burns each day is the cause of obesity?"

Heh.

Very true, but far more likely for eating the wrong foods in excess. That is, we are made more hungry by eating certain foods.

Read Taubes in the NYT here for a brief intro.

Chip Ahoy said...

The recession/depression will produce as one of its unintended side effects, a decline in the obesity rate.

I do not think so. I have noticed really super duper fat people that are apparently poor. Whole families. Beans. Starches. Carbs. Lots and lots of carbs. I see them walking sometimes together and I do marvel and I'm standing there wondering, "shouldn't you be eating -- what? -- fifteen burritos or something," continuously to keep up that bulk? That big should be fed continuously, no?

Bryan C said...

"A BMI of 21 is supposed to be normal, but in this country it's concentration-camp-skinny."

BMI is not a useful metric for determining what is "normal".

Joe said...

Perfectly silly; there are cars of all types out there if you go do more than one dealer. Moreover, you don't have to buy big gulps, you can forgo soda altogether. When eating, you have choice as well.

Rusty said...

Q said...
You'd be happy if someone else would come up with a law against those damned fat bastards, though?


That's a stupid response to somebody saying that they don't support laws against those dammed fat bastards.

I would be happy if self-indulgent Americans learned a little self-restraint. Those protruding bellies are part and parcel of the lack of responsibility in all aspects of American life. The sort of people who lack the self-control to eat a little less will never have the self-control to restrain government spending. It's all about immediate gratification.

Everything comes down to the character of the people. The fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy.


LOL!!!


Like you can do anything about it.


Somebody hand me a ham.

Q said...

The notion that eating carbs makes people fat is just idiotic. For most of the past two thousand years the bulk of the human race has lived mostly on carbs. Chinese peasants lived on rice. European peasants lived on bread and potatoes. This was the case up until very recently. And those Chinese and European peasants were not fat.

The role of sugar is a different one. But this crap about how eating bread, rice, and spuds makes you obese is just moronic. It's how much of them you eat and how much exercise you get which determines whether you'll gain additional fat cells.

Q said...

Like you can do anything about it.

I can do as much about it as I can do about any of the other issues which we comment on here. Not much, but a little.

John said...

"That's a quote, not me saying that."

You have my apology - but for the record, are portions getting larger or smaller at the restaurants you frequent? And, are bills getting larger or smaller?

That last question is kind of silly...

Paul Zrimsek said...

I feel that way about all sorts of people, and so do you.

We usually have better reasons for feeling that way than you do. (We could scarcely have worse ones.)

Pogo said...

"I have noticed really super duper fat people that are apparently poor. Whole families. "

That's the point.

They are NOT poor. Not by any standard, except for US gummint stats. they have enough money to buy cartloads of the wrong foods.

They soon will be poor, however. And then they will be thinner.

William said...

I'm not in favor of obesity, exhaust fumes, or automatic weapons in the hand of maniacs. It says something about the credibility and sanctimony of liberals that they frame these issues in such a way that they have lost the argument.

Q said...

BMI is not a useful metric for determining what is "normal".


It is a "useful" metric. Is it 100% accurate? Of course not. No metric is.

There are a tiny handful of people with BMI 30 who are professional athletes in good physical shape. That does not alter the fact that 99% of people with BMI 30 are lard-asses.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

The commenter, like many New York trendy types, equates being overweight with being "old" like his/her parents. If one stays thin, or so they believe, one can drop dead at 95 without ever having become "old" like their parents.

Keep in mind that in this case "old" actually means "grown up adult".

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Like the mayor's most recent call for a discussion of gun control by the two presidential candidates, I support his attempt to institute regulation of one of the more toxic forms of 'freedom.'"

Wow.

Q said...

We usually have better reasons for feeling that way than you do.


I had not realized that you were royalty, my liege.

Perhaps I may humbly beg the royal "we" to explain what reasons "we" believe I have?

Rusty said...

Where's my goddamn ham!!!

Q said...

Where's my goddamn ham!!!


You've eaten too much goddamn ham already, lard ass!!!

Bryan C said...

"The cause of obesity is very very close to being exactly identified. All that is lacking is the right types of studies."

Taubes, et. al. may be completely correct. Or they may be partly correct. Or they may be correct for certain specific instances and wrong for others. That's what studies are for.

I kinda suspect that they're mostly right from a theoretical perspective. But I also suspect that we'll discover more variation in basic human metabolism than we've previously realized.

None of this has anything to do with passing laws or determining government policy, of course.

EMD said...

Scott - Subarus are the greatest. I'm on my third. Comfortable, reliable, fantastic field of vision, very low maintenance even at high mileage. I'm a Forester fan but the Impreza is hatchbacky, I think. Try 'em.

I didn't realize you were all lesbians.

Clyde said...

Obviously that fine commenter should be chairing a People's Tribunal and offering the fatties their choice of death or exile.

Bryan C said...

"That does not alter the fact that 99% of people with BMI 30 are lard-asses."

Fine, they're lard-asses. We might as well craft public policy around clothing size, then, because it's at least as strongly correlated with lard-assness as BMI.

Clyde said...

@ EMD --

You think a Subaru was Sally's ride?

TMink said...

I do appreciate that at least this horrible ban is directed at excess carbohydrates which do in fact cause obesity. Now if they could just lose the bad science trans fat ban, they would be headed somewhere.

Trey

Peter said...

"This asshat apparently has never seen your average family car built before 1970."

A VW bug was not "your average family car," but it WAS small. The empty weight of a VW bug was less than 2,000 pounds.

I don't think there is any car sold in the USA today that doesn't weigh over 2,000 pounds. Even a Scion IQ (2012 base model) weighs 2127 pounds.

Most small cars weigh more. Is that because they need to provide enough room for fat drivers? How many Americans would fit into the front seats of a 1960s VW bug?

(The culprit? Food technologists have created supernormal stimuli, causing us to eat too much.)

TMink said...

Pogo wrote: "they have enough money to buy cartloads of the wrong foods."

Sadly, it does not take cartloads of high carbohydrate foods and snacks to become obese. Most of those foods are relatively cheap and do not require much preparation.

You should not be able to purchase them with food stamps, you should only be able to purchase raw meats and veggies. That would help tremendously.

Trey

Paul Zrimsek said...

Frankly, Alex, I'd settle for a sugar mommy buying me a Paragon Panther.

I wouldn't even insist on a flying one.

chuckR said...

My parents grew up in the Depression. My mother witnessed hunger; my father occasionally lived it. Their kids, like others in the 50's, were urged to clean their plates, not knowing what was behind the exhortation. We don't have starving people today but we do have malnourished people. If you don't like it - tighten up on what you are allowed to buy under the Food Stamp program. When it becomes a discretionary expenditure of welfare bucks, then it may be throttled back some. If you are too weak to regulate your own intake of questionable foods, you can always move to NYC and have the Nanny take care of the decision for you.

Q said...

We might as well craft public policy around clothing size, then, because it's at least as strongly correlated with lard-assness as BMI.


Who said anything about "crafting public policy"?

A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left-wing mindset: You either (a) pass a law, or (b) do nothing at all.

Sigivald said...

As for new cars, they look "sloppy and bloated, bigger than they need to be" because of do-gooder "safety" regulations.

Those ugly high belt-lines that make them look like armored cars with no visibility? To notionally reduce pedestrian injury in a collision.

(Plus what TosaGuy said.)

Screw the god-damn lot of them, those busybodies who want to run other people's lives. Especially to save "costs" that those same damned busybodies mandated should be covered by the State.

(Universal healthcare's biggest negative, I think, is that it makes all of everyone's lives the effective property of the State and the general population, because now the State is paying for them.

Damn them all.)

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Pogo said...
The "lower fraction of food spending" is complementary to the "wrong foods" idea. They are not mutually exclusive, but additive, perhaps multiplicative.


You have no evidence of that. All one can honestly say is that they may be correlated. There is NO evidence they are additive or multiplicative.

In fact, I can easily posit a person with VERY little money, but eating mostly inexpensive carbs. They will be fat.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

there are cars of all types out there if you go do more than one dealer.

We have/buy vehicles that are USABLE for us. That eliminates anything subcompact, completely eliminates any type of hybrid or electric vehicle, anything not 4x4 or all wheel drive. GPS is useless for us, as are many of the bells and whistles. The less computing powered crappola on the vehicle the better.

We need large carrying capacity (either a pickup or good sized SUV), good towing power, ability to drive LONG LONG distances, in the snow or in the scorching heat. High enough on the road to see the deer, antelope and cattle in the distance. Sturdy front end and/or a grill guard for the same critters as above.

So you can take your little shoebox sized, hybrid, green weenie plastic pieces of crap and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Shanna said...

Now if they could just lose the bad science trans fat ban

Wait, are you saying you don't think 'trans' fats are bad? Because I thought that was pretty well proven, but I could be wrong.

Animal fats are a whole different story, though.

Alex said...

DBQ represents "flyover" rednecks.

Justin said...

I'm surprised by the general sentiment in this thread. Aren't conservatives supposed to be about personal responsibility? Most fat people are fat because they eat poorly and don't exercise. I don't think the government should regulate the size of sodas, but I do think private industry should start incentivizing weight loss. I have frequently been next to people on planes and trains who really should have been required to buy two seats. Sorry, Ann, but the overweight are intruding on the rest of us -- literally.

Q said...

You have no evidence of that. All one can honestly say is that they may be correlated. There is NO evidence they are additive or multiplicative.


In fact, I can easily posit a person with VERY little money, but eating mostly inexpensive carbs. They will be fat.


You have no evidence of that.

Ever since humans stopped being hunter-gatherers and turned to agriculture several thousand years ago, the great majority of people have lived on inexpensive carbs. And they were not fat. Many people in the world still live on that diet. They are not fat.

ed said...

Liberals.

The only group of people that want to force the obese to get government healthcare and yet despises them for having it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ represents "flyover" rednecks.

Yep :-D And this is why the green energy revolution, hybrid cars, tiny apartment living, socially controlled lifestyles and other idiocy thought up in think tanks in Washington DC and San Francisco by people who have never left their cloistered environment, will never come to fruition nationwide. We aren't buying it....literally....and it just does not work.

Alex said...

Q - we actually have no idea what those ancient people's cardiovascular health was. Remember they didn't live very long and they lived high-stress lives.

ed said...

@ Q

"Ever since humans stopped being hunter-gatherers and turned to agriculture several thousand years ago, the great majority of people have lived on inexpensive carbs. And they were not fat. Many people in the world still live on that diet. They are not fat."

They aren't fat because they're -poor-.

So while they eat primarily carbs they are in fact diet restricted because of poverty. But when poverty isn't an issue that same diet will cause problems.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Aren't conservatives supposed to be about personal responsibility? ....
I have frequently been next to people on planes and trains who really should have been required to buy two seats


Well, that is one way to enforce personal responsibility. If you are so fat that it takes two seats to sit your ass into, then you pay double. Don't like it....don't be so fat. And don't expect everyone to create special accommodations for your gigantic bulky body.

Same thing goes for the personal responsibility of smoking etc for health care. Smoked, drank, did drugs and ate yourself into poor health? Then you should have to pay MORE for your health insurance or if you are so bad....tuff shit. You don't get any health insurance and you pay for your health CARE on your own instead of forcing the rest of us to subsidize your crappy lifestyle.....Thanks to OBAMACARE, which has removed any personal responsibility from the equation.

There feel better now?

AJ Lynch said...

The uninsured obese would not be able to drain our bank accounts without the govt's complicity and incompetence.

Scott said...

@ricpic @Shanna: Thanks, I will have a look. There's a Subaru dealer in my 'hood.

@EMD: I actually know two lesbians who own Foresters. And Honda CRVs are definitely women's cars. I don't think I've ever seen a man drive one.

MadisonMan said...

Those are big roomy and bloated. I WANT one.

Same here. But where would I put it? We share a drive and have a one-car garage. I'd really like a late-40s Studebaker.

Totally impractical, I know.

Q said...

So while they eat primarily carbs they are in fact diet restricted because of poverty. But when poverty isn't an issue that same diet will cause problems.


You are contradicting yourself. According to you it is not what they are eating which is making them fat, it is that they are eating too much of it. The lack of calorie restriction is their problem.

Once, that restriction occurred because they were too poor to eat more. That restriction has been removed and now the only restriction on how many calories people consume is their own self-restraint.

You can't escape that problem by blaming food.

Pogo said...

A recent natural experiment proves my point, and led some researchers to laud the approach of weight loss through poverty.

Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Cienfuegos, Cuba and Loyola University studied the effects of the economic crisis of Cuba in 1989-2000. 

Because of the fall of the USSR, they lost Soviet money ($5B annually), and the remainder of their economy being a typical socialist hole, people began to starve. Calorie intake fell from 2,899 kcal in 1988 to 1,863 kcal in 1993. Food intake thus dropped below nutritional requirements. 

Under Cuba's communist country's 45-year-old universal ration system, Cubans all got a "heavily subsidized monthly food basket of beans, rice, potatoes, eggs, a little meat and other goods."

In the economic crisis, cars (and gas) became unaffordable, and lacking a viable public transport system, bicycles and walking became the primary means of transportation. Obesity prevalence decreased from 14.3% in 1991 to 7.2% in 1995.

Following this, there were substantial declines in cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and all-cause mortality.   As a result, obesity declined, as did deaths attributed to diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke.

The researchers neglected to report (or were unaware of) an epidemic of blindness and peripheral neuropathy due to a lack of vitamins, affecting over 33,000 people.

The paper drew this conclusion from the mass near-starvation induced by poverty: 

"Population-wide approaches designed to reduce caloric intake and increase physical activity, without affecting nutritional sufficiency, might be best suited for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and diabetes."

Poverty -real poverty starves. It solves obesity.

AllieOop said...

I certainly hope Q isn't a doctor or nutritionist.

He would do well to read Volek/ Finney and Taubes, get with the latest and best info available on obesity, instead of making a personal judgment.

Q said...

Fuck Taubes and the horse he rode in on.

People blaming carbs for obesity are exactly like people blaming the "lack of gun control" for gun violence.

In both cases people are absolved of all responsibility for their actions and inanimate objects are assigned blame.

You want to lose weight? Get a little exercise and stop eating so much!

AllieOop said...

Such profound ignorance.

Q said...

Under Cuba's communist country's 45-year-old universal ration system, Cubans all got a "heavily subsidized monthly food basket of beans, rice, potatoes, eggs, a little meat and other goods."


Which, according to Tabues, should have resulted in an epidemic of obesity in Cuba.

Q said...

Such profound ignorance.


Such a typical inability to respond to other peoples arguments. Instead you offer the stock liberal response of sneering dismissal.

Still waiting for any of you Taubsians to explain why most of the world is not obese despite living on exactly the sort of diet Taubes condemns.

AllieOop said...

Q, have you ever heard of insulin resistance? Leptin? Grehlin? No? Then you don't know what you are talking about as it relates to fructose, PUFA's and the Standard American Diet.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Q do you think that your own sneering condemnation of obese people makes you look like a hypocrite?

Alex said...

I agree with Q - move more, eat less. The human body is a simple engine. It's plain thermodynamics.

Christopher in MA said...

A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left wing mindset: You either (A) pass a law, or (B) do nothing at all

Excuse me, Q, but who came in here sneering I am tired of Americans being so damned fat, then followed it up with the notion that because we're a nation of fat fucks, we'll never be able to get the national budget under control?

You're the one who can't stand the sight of fat people. You're the one demanding we be as outraged as you are. Apparently, because we're not joining in your Emmanuel Goldstein moment, we're fans of "doing nothing at all."

Were I a Freudian, I'd suspect there's a lot more pissing you off than just the sight of fat people.

Paul - glad somebody got the reference! If only I were clever with my hands. . .

Q said...

"A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left wing mindset: You either (A) pass a law, or (B) do nothing at all"


Excuse me, Q, but who came in here sneering I am tired of Americans being so damned fat, then followed it up with the notion that because we're a nation of fat fucks, we'll never be able to get the national budget under control?



Excuse me, but I'm not seeing the connection between what I wrote, and what you wrote in response.

If I said "There should be a law requiring all Americans to only vote for politicians who will get the budget under control!", you'd have a point. But I didn't, and you don't.

Americas are a self-indulgent people who like to spoil themselves. That can manifest itself as a desire for an extra slice of cheesecake, or a McMansion, or it can manifest itself as a desire for more government goodies which we don't have to pay for.

The cardinal rule of a representative democracy is that the people must be capable of exercising self-restraint.


You're the one who can't stand the sight of fat people.


What was the point of writing that? It's false by the way, and I never said it. But if it were correct it would be merely stating a fact.



Apparently, because we're not joining in your Emmanuel Goldstein moment, we're fans of "doing nothing at all."


Let's set aside the fact that the "Emmanuel Goldstein" reaction would be to terrorize and kill people and that I have rejected such tactics. Your emotions seem to have gotten the better of you. There's more of that lack of self-control I'm talking about ...

Why don't you tell me what you suggest be done since you reject "doing nothing at all"?

Q said...

Were I a Freudian, I'd suspect there's a lot more pissing you off than just the sight of fat people.



I've explained in some detail that I am "pissed off", as you put it, about "a lot more" than "just the sight of fat people".

Has it occurred to you to attempt to read what I write? No Freudian reading-between-the-lines is necessary, I tell you exactly where I'm coming from.

Q said...

Q do you think that your own sneering condemnation of obese people makes you look like a hypocrite?


Ah, yes, the liberal resort to "hypocrite" as the ultimate in magic words. Calling somebody a "hypocrite" is like laying down a royal flush at poker.


Are you capable of explaining precisely how you think that my "sneering condemnation of obese people" makes me "look like a hypocrite"? I've read your writing here and I very much doubt that you can.

Hypocrite, like "racist", is a just a word which you were taught in college settled all arguments.

Rusty said...

Q said...
Where's my goddamn ham!!!


You've eaten too much goddamn ham already, lard ass!!!



You can never have too much ham.
or
pizza

Anybody want to order a pizza?


Quite possibly,
the worlds,
most perfect,
food.



i am not fat.
i am proportionally challenged
gimme a sammich

Alex said...

Rusty - you're a proud fatass?

Rusty said...

Fat people! Run!

If I could run, I wouldn't be fat!

TMink said...

Shanna, I am just a psychologist, so all my nutritional info is second hand from reading Traubes, a couple of the original studies, and Atkins. Their research has shown that some people react to high carb diet by fattening. It is a metabolic process that is the same as the one animals go through as they fatten for the winter. The body takes excess carbs and stores them as fat.

This is in contrast to the other prominent metabolic process, lypolisis (sp??) in which the body burns fat for energy. When people are in the fattening metabolism, extra fats are deposited as plaque.

When people are burning fat for energy, extra dietary fat is urinated out of the body. Lots of good healthy fats are needed in order for the body to switch metabolic activity, so all fats are helpful in this regard. And if the body is not fattening, then there is no deposit of plaque.

This is behaviorally supported by the native Alaskan folks who eat blubber and have no problems with obesity or heart issues. Until they leave that diet and get fat like the rest of us.

So trans-fats are not a problem for people who are burning fats, only people who are depositing fats because they are eating too many carbs.

At least that is my understanding of the research. 8)

Trey

TMink said...

"The notion that eating carbs makes people fat is just idiotic."

Citation please. Do you have any scientific reason to believe this? And do we have any research to help us accept your claim? Or should we just take your presenting them in an absolutistic, blowhard fashion as indicative of their worth?

Trey

Christopher in MA said...

It's false, by the way, and I never said that.

So you didn't. You did write the fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy. Not exactly a hail-fellow-well-met to the local lardass.

The "Emmanuel Goldstein" reference was to 1984's Two Minute Hate. I presumed you'd be familiar with the allusion.

Why don't you tell me what you suggest should be done?

Frankly, my dear, it's like smoking. If, after all these years of being told that eating useless calories, sugary drinks and processed fast food on a regular basis while being sedentary, you still don't know that eating less and exercising is good for you, there's nothing that can be done.

What do you want? Mandatory fat camps? Employment opportunities to be restricted based on BMI? Outright banning of portion sizes or foodstuffs?

My emotions aren't getting the better of me at all. All I'm seeing from you is a subtext of I'm sick of seeing so many fat people. They're fat because they're lazy pig degenerates. I don't like them. Why can't we do something about them?

Don't blame me because you came off as a humorless scold. It might surprise you to know I agree with you that too many Americans are obese and that it isn't good for us. But I'm not about to look for some stick to force them to eat carrots, either.

And now, I'm off. Time to go home and make a big pan of fried chicken. Nom nom nom.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Nanny Bloomberg morphs into Loony Bloomberg.

Q said...

You did write the fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy. Not exactly a hail-fellow-well-met to the local lardass.


I never said that it was a "hail-fellow-well-met to the local lardass". If you are capable of making any non-strawman arguments, please do so.



Frankly, my dear, it's like smoking. If, after all these years of being told that eating useless calories, sugary drinks and processed fast food on a regular basis while being sedentary, you still don't know that eating less and exercising is good for you, there's nothing that can be done.


Ah. So, after getting really pissy at me for suggesting that you favor doing nothing at all .. ("Apparently, because we're not joining in your Emmanuel Goldstein moment, we're fans of "doing nothing at all" ) .. you now are telling that you believe in doing ... nothing at all.

Glad we cleared that up.


What do you want? Mandatory fat camps?

You seem to be determined to prove my earlier claim that "A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left wing mindset: You either (A) pass a law, or (B) do nothing at all"

Most of human existence has nothing to do with either government passing laws or self-actualizing individuals self-actualizing themselves.

I want change the old-fashioned way - via social pressure.


My emotions aren't getting the better of me at all ..

..he spat furiously, slamming the door as he left.

Shanna said...

So trans-fats are not a problem for people who are burning fats, only people who are depositing fats because they are eating too many carbs.

I read Good Calories Bad Calories in it's entirety. I do not remember a chapter on 'trans' fats, just fats in general particularly animal fats. Trans fats are man made and it's my understanding that they have been linked to cancer in reputable studies. I would be interested in reading any research that says otherwise.

Which, according to Tabues, should have resulted in an epidemic of obesity in Cuba.

Spoken like someone who has never read him. I’m pretty sure there was a whole chapter on starvation and hunger. You have not clue one what you’re talking about.

ricpic said...

The main problem with high protein high fat low carb or no carb diets is that over a long enough time they will put a strain on the kidneys and may lead to kidney failure and a condition called ketosis which I really don't understand but is pretty darn serious as it can lead to other organs failing.

Q said...

"The notion that eating carbs makes people fat is just idiotic."


Citation please. Do you have any scientific reason to believe this?



You mean, other than the scientific fact that that most of the worlds population lives on carbs at present without getting fat? And the scientific fact that Americans in the not very distant past lived on carbs without getting fat?



do we have any research to help us accept your claim?

Other than past and present human experience?

Rusty said...

Alex said...
Rusty - you're a proud fatass?



Proud? Carrying a few extra pounds? You bet.
But I can always lose weight.

Q is going to be an insufferable prick forever.

degenerate, my ass.



Sorry.
The subject just cries out for comedy.

Bob Ellison said...

This issue is left-handedly personal for me, because I have a distorted relationship to food due to Type I diabetes. I've learned a few things over the years:

* Carb intake rules blood sugar.

* Carb intake does not really vary according to type of carbs (sorry, fructose/"good carb"/"net carb" folks).

* Insulin resistance, as Allie suggests, is extremely important, and increasingly so as individuals age.

* Obesity is probably related to intrinsic qualities that have little to do with the will to eat less and exercise more.

* Atkins was correct.

Q said...

Spoken like someone who has never read him. I’m pretty sure there was a whole chapter on starvation and hunger. You have not clue one what you’re talking about.


I have a clue that if you don't stuff your fat face full of food all day, you won't have a fat face.

Watching people who think they are on the right engaging in left-wing thinking - "It's not MY fault, forces outside my control are making poor ole me fat!" - is starting to irritate me.

Sack up, you losers.

Shanna said...

And the scientific fact that Americans in the not very distant past lived on carbs without getting fat?

Americans used to eat awesome breakfasts full of bacon, cook with lard constantly, etc…so I’m not sure where you’re getting the ‘scientific fact’ that they lived on carbs. What actually happened is the government said ‘OMG fat is evil stop eating it!’ and Americans for the part said ‘ok’ and cut way back. And got fatter. Because the advice was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Science.

Shanna said...

I have a clue that if you don't stuff your fat face full of food all day, you won't have a fat face.

Aren't you a doll.

Bob Ellison said...

Q, what if tomorrow Harvard Medical School comes up with the obesity gene, and says that it accounts for 80% of obesity in America?

Would you amend your comment in that case? or are you certain they won't do that?

Pogo said...

I suspect a genetic propensity for efficient fat storage is likely, because man used to live in times of significant starvation.

It makes great sense that we should have developed/chosen that protection.

But we no longer live in times of periodic starvation, and now have more money to spend on food (as a percent of income) than ever before in the history of the world.

Couple that with horrible advice on which foods to eat, and whammo.

Q said...

Americans used to eat awesome breakfasts full of bacon, cook with lard constantly, etc…so I’m not sure where you’re getting the ‘scientific fact’ that they lived on carbs



Everybody used to live on carbs, not just Americans. Those awesome American breakfasts of yesteryear included goodly amounts of toast and hash-browns.


http://www.livestrong.com/article/461209-the-typical-american-family-diet-in-1908/


Had you lived in 1908, you would have eaten potatoes, of some variety, at least once a day.

In the 1900s, bread-making was part of the daily routine in American households. Whole grain cereals were year-round breakfast staples.


Americans of that era, unaware that too much of a good thing could be harmful, were much taken with sweets. In 1908, you would have treated your family to homemade muffins, cakes and pies, or bought them at the local bakery.






In the i9th century poor farm workers across Europe lived almost entirely on bread and potatoes. (This lead to a big famine in Ireland when the potato crop failed) But there are no accounts from the time mentioning the remarkable obesity of these people.


There is not one shred of evidence that eating rice, grains, or potatoes makes people fat, other than the normal sense that eating too much of any food makes you fat.

Ever since the dawn of the "agricultural revolution" when people learned to raise crops, the bulk of the human diet has been made up of those crops - and they are carbohydrates.

If this "carbs=poison" narrative were true, it would mean that we've been poisoning ourselves for the past ten thousand years or so.

Alex said...

Q - most of the Western world is fat on overconsuming carbs.

sydney said...

Too bad sexual incontinence isn't accompanied by a physical sign the way gluttony is. Then we could easily identify the people who are costing us money for STD treatment and AIDS research and who are depriving us of the means of keeping our entitlements solvent by aborting future taxpayers.

Q said...

Q, what if tomorrow Harvard Medical School comes up with the obesity gene, and says that it accounts for 80% of obesity in America?


Would you amend your comment in that case? or are you certain they won't do that?



I am 100% certain that they won't do that.

Don't you think it's a little odd that this "obesity gene" exists only "in America"?

Everything we know about genetics tells us such a result is impossible. If an "obesity gene" exists in America it should be widespread in Europe, the recent origin point for the majority of Americans. And yet, you just don't the level of obesity in Europe that you do in America.

What's the most likely possible explanation for that discrepancy?

Shanna said...

Of course we ate carbs in the past, but that's not all we ate. With dietary advice in the last 30/40 years, we ate way, way more of them. And we get way, way fatter.

I mean, I know correlation is not necessarily causation and all that, but it certainly could be. At least enough to maybe allow for the possibility that it is related.

Shanna said...

More than half of adults in Europe are overweight or obese.

So no, not just an american problem.

Alex said...

Q - are you aware of the research that proves carbs generate inflammation?

ed said...

@ Q

"You are contradicting yourself. According to you it is not what they are eating which is making them fat, it is that they are eating too much of it. The lack of calorie restriction is their problem."

In what way am I contradicting myself? You stated that people have essentially evolved to live on a carb heavy/low protein diet by using the example that people on such diets are thing.

I pointed out that this is a complete fallacy and that reason why such people are thin are because they are too poor to afford a better more protein rich diet. So the proof of your example, the slenderness of carb eaters, is another example of correlation vs causation.

And how do I know this? Because I grew up in a very poor and very very rural village in South Korea in the early 1960's and the primary component of my daily food was rice, some pickled vegetables and maybe a little fish.

The precise diet you extol. And I can tell you that we didn't eat that diet because we wanted to.

Q said...

most of the Western world is fat on overconsuming carbs.



No, most of the Western world is fat from over-consuming calories, relative to the amount of physical exertion that they engage in. There is nothing magical about carbs.

Those Irish peasants who ate nothing but potatoes every day were not fat, because calories in equaled calories out.

karrde said...

I notice that while this letter writer complains about large sodas, they mention oversized food portions of all kinds as contributory.

Does this mean that they would be in favor of laws limiting portion size of most food offerings at most restaurants? Or will they decide that eliminating big-gulp sodas are next?

What if I wonder whether being silent about big-gulp sodas will leave me complaining when they come for Big Macs and Whoppers?

What if my meal of choice is an extra-large plate of pasta at an Italian restaurant?

Does portion size matter, or must it also be politically unfavorable...er, I mean unhealthy, food?

Nathan Alexander said...

Here's what I understand:

From a very basic, very simple point of view, weight gain/loss is a function of calories ingested vs calories consumed via metabolism and exercise.

If you don't get enough calories, you will starve, you will lose weight.

No one can/should dispute this.

The problem may be defining what "enough calories" is.

Regardless, input calories and output exercise is only 2 parts of the equation. A 3rd is metabolism. A 4th is hunger/satisfaction.

Our understanding of how to adjust metabolism is rudimentary at best.

Our understanding of hunger is even worse.

For instance, some foods do not quench hunger, in the same way that some drinks do not quench thirst.

So eating those types of foods will leave you ingesting more calories to feel full.

It only makes sense, then, that having cheap, plentiful forms of that food will make you fat. Because, remember, doing something as minor as one extra glass of fruit juice per day will make you gain 10 pounds.

Carbohydrates digest quickly and let you feel hungry more quickly, and so appear to be unhelpful for staying thin.

So when poor Chinese people eat a high carb, low fat diet and stay thin, you cannot equate that to an American eating a high carb, low fat diet, because the American must exercise willpower to avoid eating fat/protein, and must be fully aware of every bit of fat they eat. Just not paying attention can add 100 calories/day to the American's diet that the poor Chinese cannot ever choose to add.
100 calories/day equals 35k extra calories/year, which is 10 extra pounds right there!

If carbohydrates depress metabolism, as well, that just makes things worse. Only a few moments of thought should make it clear that if your body (whether at rest or exercising) burns just one less calorie/hour, you will end up much fatter than if you burn one extra calorie per hour.

One thing that seems for sure: plentiful, cheap carbs AND protein AND fat makes it very easy to gain weight, very difficult to lose weight, and very difficult to keep it off.

Bottom line: the human body has many mechanisms and methods to gain weight in surplus times to preserve life in lean times. Certain foods can support those mechanisms or weaken them. The more we understand those mechanisms, the easier it will be to lose weight and maintain a lower weight.

ed said...

@ Q

"You mean, other than the scientific fact that that most of the worlds population lives on carbs at present without getting fat? And the scientific fact that Americans in the not very distant past lived on carbs without getting fat?"

Ok now you need to CITE a source. Because that is just utter bullshit.

The primary component of the American diet for about 200 years was meat not carbs. So you're going to assert something different then you need to provide the evidence for it.

So cite it or go away.

Joe said...

extra dietary fat is urinated out of the body.

This isn't even remotely true. Urine consists of waste products as a result of metabolic processes; i.e. burning energy.

The overwhelming evidence is that it ultimately comes down to calories and affluent people, especially Americans, simply eat more. It's not a lot more, but enough to make a difference over time. (Americans eat on average about 200 more calories a day now than in 1975.)

The overwhelming evidence is that if you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. The opposite is also true.

It's also very apparent that Americans drink more soda that ever before and that this consumption directly correlates with the increase of obesity. Is it a primary cause? I don't know, but the evidence points in that direction. (Reduction in smoking has also had an effect. I believe an emphasis in aerobic vs. resistance exercise has had an effect as has the war on dietary fat, resulting in using sugar to make food taste palatable.)

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I nominate "Q" for Ass Hat of the Year.

Q said...

The precise diet you extol. And I can tell you that we didn't eat that diet because we wanted to.


It is irrelevant why you ate it. What's notable here in the context of the current discussion is what did not happen - you did not get fat on your high carb diet.


reason why such people are thin are because they are too poor to afford a better more protein rich diet.

I think there's a lot to that. It flies in the face of the "eating cabs makes you fat" argument though. (If I understand you correctly, you are not one of those making that argument)

ed said...

@ Q

"Those Irish peasants who ate nothing but potatoes every day were not fat, because calories in equaled calories out."

Oh for the love of ...

What movie did you get this from?

Q said...

I nominate "Q" for Ass Hat of the Year



It's just a damn shame that the validity of scientific facts is not determined by a poll of blog commenters.

ed said...

@ Q

"It is irrelevant why you ate it. What's notable here in the context of the current discussion is what did not happen - you did not get fat on your high carb diet."

Because the amount of carbs I ate amounted to about a cup of cooked rice a day.

Do you not understand the issue of portion size?

Q said...

What movie did you get this from?


Christ, man, read a history book and then come back here and join in. I can't educate you about every aspect of history in the space and time available.

Google it if you don't want to read a book.

Or ask yourself why all those people starved just because the potato crop failed.

Q said...

Do you not understand the issue of portion size?


I understand the issue of portion size perfectly, ed.

If you follow the thread you'll see that I'm pointing out that people get fat not by eating carbs, but by eating too much. Too big a portion size, in other words.

Unknown said...

Puritanism has never died out, especially in this country. The problem is, political correctness has severely limited the targets of the puritan's self righteous meddling. I think we're left with only fat people and smokers to bear the entire pent up rage of our bourgeois Savonarolas.

Marshal said...

"There's nothing patriotic about eating and drinking yourself sick, but our cars and toasters have that same look. America the insatiable. And those of us lucky enough to have health insurance are paying the brunt of other people's overindulgence."

Interesting comparison to AIDS isn't it? Of course anyone writing this about AIDS would only appear in the NYT under attack.

Q said...

Puritanism has never died out, especially in this country. The problem is, political correctness has severely limited the targets of the puritan's self righteous meddling.


Yes, because the Puritans were well known for their criticism of black people.

Alex said...

to Q there is no difference between 400 calories of beef and 400 calories of bread. It's all the same.

Alex said...

Q - have you even read Gary Taubes book?

Bob Ellison said...

Q, nutrition is not a linear equation. People with diet issues would love it if that were so, but it's not.

paul a'barge said...

lowly disgust for citizens with obesity and an irrational fear that the overweight are intruding on the rest of us and draining us of our wealth

Irrational?

Winning The Future?

Been on an airplane sitting in coach and down the aisle, shuffling sideways comes a really, really fat person and you thoughts go to ... what? Please don't sit next to me, that's what.

Give me a big gulp break. Please.

Joe said...

The primary component of the American diet for about 200 years was meat not carbs.

Not true.

Do just a little reading. Yes, Americans historically ate more meat than many other cultures (and drank more until prohibition), but it was only part of a broader diet.

What do you think are in bread and potatoes, which were, and are, a staple of the American diet? And corn, peas, asparagus, tomatoes, honey...? Refined table sugar isn't a modern invention, neither is corn syrup. (I was surprised to find that marshmallows, which I don't like, were invented in 1850!)

paul a'barge said...

@Alex: there is no difference between 400 calories of beef and 400 calories of bread. It's all the same.

Hey Alex! Guess what? Yep, you are officially the moron of the day, dude.

Go. Away.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

paul - you moron I was stating what Q believes in, but you fail reading comprehension which makes you moron of the day.

Alex said...

Q also fails to comprehend that obesity has exploded with HFCS explosion in everything. Coincidence? I think not.

Q said...

The primary component of the American diet for about 200 years was meat not carbs.



I've already provided a cite for saying that Americans lived mostly on carbs. A diet mostly of meat is an unhealthy diet.

You say that a protein rich diet makes people big and strong. It does, within reason. But American soldiers in WWI and WWII were a scrawny bunch. In fact the main reason why the government started issuing dietary guidelines was that they wanted bigger, stronger American soldiers.


I'm curious about why somebody who grew up in Korea is attempting to lecture me about some obscure details of American and European history.

Alex said...

Q - did Americans live on HFCS for 200 years? Did we have 2L bottles of soda everywhere you looked? What you are missing is the sugar explosion which Gary Taubes highlights in his book.

Shanna said...

I've already provided a cite for saying that Americans lived mostly on carbs. A diet mostly of meat is an unhealthy diet.

First of all, you are both forgetting about fat, which is quite important.

Also your own cite says: Meat was a mainstay of the 1908 American diet. It's livestrong and talks in complete generalities, not specific macronutrient breakdowns.

Everything I've read said we increased carbs after the no fat craze.

Q said...

Q also fails to comprehend that obesity has exploded with HFCS explosion in everything. Coincidence? I think not.


Q has not failed to comprehend that. Q thinks that it is perfectly possible that HFCS is at least part of the reason why Americans are more obese than other people.

But Q is also aware that high fructose corn syrup has nothing to do with a discussion of whether eating bread and potatoes messes up your metabolism. By "bread" Q means normal bread, not bread with HFCS in it as commonly eaten in the US.

I trust that clears up your misconceptions about what Q thinks.

Alex said...

Q - as if we have the option of eating non-HFCS foods.

Q said...

your own cite says: Meat was a mainstay of the 1908 American diet.


Meat is a mainstay of the 2012 American diet.


It's livestrong and talks in complete generalities, not specific macronutrient breakdowns.


There is no source which can tell you with a greater degree of accuracy what Americans ate a hundred years ago. The "specific macronutrient breakdown" you demand does not exist.

The fact remains that Americans ate a lot of carbs in 1908. They ate a lot of potatoes and a lot of bread. They did not eat the low-carb diet which you claimed they ate.

Q said...

as if we have the option of eating non-HFCS foods


Man up, you pussy. Stop acting as if vast and impersonal forces are controlling your actions.

I had some delicious baked potatoes just last night. 100% HFCS free. And lots of yummy carbs!


Americans consume HFCS because the Ag-Business bribes the government to force us to do so.

Q said...

Q - did Americans live on HFCS for 200 years? Did we have 2L bottles of soda everywhere you looked?


I have a 2L bottle of soda in my fridge, but it's sweetened with real sugar and not HFCS. I also consume the stuff in moderation.

If that's not the case with you then whose fault is that?

Alex said...

Q - no one can consume full sugar sodas in moderation. That's why I ban it from my house. I'm considering stomach stapling, but maybe I'll try a diet first.

EMD said...

Metabolism is a bitch, too.

You've got to work harder and harder to burn those precious calories.

I work at it, and try to be diligent.

Michael said...

""irrational fear that the overweight are intruding on the rest of us and draining us of our wealth"

I don't think fatties are draining my wealth but they will be when their health issues hit our collective pockets. But they are definitely intruding. Fatties spill over into my space on airplanes, they waddle slowly in front of me, they move three and four abreast wherever they are.

This crap about insulin resistance and Gary Taubes is hilarious. Why is this a problem only on this part of this continent? Why is this problem not in Asia, the sub-continent, South America? Why is it not a problem in Canada? In Mexico? I have been to all of these place and I can assure you I could gain a hundred pounds in any of them without any insulin resistance, without any problem whatsoever.

EMD said...

There's also the conflation of weight with health.

Marathon runners drop dead from heart attacks, too.

Alex said...

Michael - obesity is exploding in Asia as they adopt American foods.

Joe said...

Everything I've read said we increased carbs after the no fat craze.

Well, during, or as a result of, but the point is valid and missed. Carbs are not bad for you. Eating carbs at the expense of fats is (which is what has happened. Protein consumption as a percentage of diet has increased slightly in the past past 40 years.)

There are many natural foods with high concentrations of fructose to sucrose than HFCS. However, what HFCS did was make sweeteners a helluva lot cheaper on a massive scale. (There is some evidence that this increase in overall fructose consumption has led to an increase in gout, but that would have happened with current consumption rates even if cane/beet sugar were used.)

Incidentally, drinking soda flavored with cane or beet sugar isn't a big improvement and may, strictly speaking, not be one at all (considering that HFCS-42 actually has less fructose than cane/beet sugar.) I'm with Alex on this one; not drinking soda may be the healthiest single thing someone can do.

Shanna said...

They did not eat the low-carb diet which you claimed they ate.

I did NOT say our ancestors ate Atkins. I said that when Fat was demonized, we started eating more carbs. This is a fact. And we got fatter at the same time.

I'm saying it's possible those things are related. I'm saying it was a very bad idea when government scientists started telling us what to eat since most of their advice was wrong. It continues to be wrong.

Shanna said...

I'm also saying that your cite absolutely does NOT say 'americans lived mostly on carbs' as you claimed. It says they ate some carbs, and lots of meat, milk, and vegetables.

Alex said...

Remember our ancient ancestors ate all of the animal including the organs and bone marrow. Are we prepared to give up our pickiness?

ampersand said...

How about mandatory diet camps for fat people? Pick em up randomly off the street.
"Arbeit Macht Fett Frei" would be a welcoming greeting on the gate.

Bob Ellison said...

Well, my grandparents ate nothing but rocks and meteorites, with an occasional bit of sawdust for a lucky treat.

Michael said...

Alex wrote: "Michael - obesity is exploding in Asia as they adopt American foods."

No, it is not. Asians are not adopting American foods and their obesity rate is not exploding.

Alex said...

Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food

Q said...

I'm also saying that your cite absolutely does NOT say 'americans lived mostly on carbs' as you claimed. It says they ate some carbs, and lots of meat, milk, and vegetables.


Your interpretation of the information at the link is ... peculiar.

Fruits and Vegetables
Back in the day, fresh markets were not as easily accessible as they are now. The typical family ate home-grown, seasonal fruits and vegetables, unless they had the foresight to "put up" some of their previous year's crop. Had you lived in 1908, you would have eaten potatoes, of some variety, at least once a day. You might also have enjoyed tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, turnips, beets or asparagus. Fruits were less abundant in many areas of the country. Apples, cherries, plums, pears, melons and citrus fruits were, generally, reserved for breakfast and desserts.


Note that potatoes (eaten at least once a day) are included here under "Fruits and Vegetables".


Meat was a mainstay of the 1908 American diet. Culinary researcher Lynne Olver lists veal, steak, roast beef, hamburger, ham, oysters, clams, flounder, mackerel, codfish and shad as typical spring menu items.


Meat is still a mainstay of the American diet.


Grains
In the 1900s, bread-making was part of the daily routine in American households. Whole grain cereals were year-round breakfast staples.



I'm just not seeing the "low-carb" part of all this.



Milk and Dairy Foods
Milk and dairy foods weren't the focus of the American diet circa 1908, as it was difficult to prevent spoilage. It wasn't until the 1930s that the average American family owned an electric refrigerator. Until then, you stored cold foods, outside, in a well or spring house, or indoors in an "icebox" -- basically, a cabinet filled with manufactured ice. You used canned milk, rather than fresh, for cooking.



Carbs, in the form of grains and potatoes, formed the basis of the American diet.

Michael said...

Alex; fyi, "on the rise" is not the same as "exploding" and Japan is a tiny island on the edge of a very large Asia. But thanks for the link.

Q said...

Q - no one can consume full sugar sodas in moderation.


I've done it all my life. I appreciate your faith in my exceptionalism though.

Now, salty chips, Pringles and such, those are tough to consume in moderation.

Q said...

Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food


Where does that leave the "obesity
gene" nonsense?

Q said...

Per the Japanese link provided by Alex -

According to Gozoh Tsujimoto, director of the Drug Discovery Research Center at Kyoto University, there is a straightforward explanation for the expansion of waistlines in Japan: Westernization.


"Lifestyle factors have become Westernized," he told me in an email interview. "Especially, food has become Westernized — and mainly high-calorie and high fat."




Wait a sec, I thought it was high carbs that were the problem, and that high fat was good?

This link and its obsession with "high-calories" is like something Q would write! A Japanese Q, if you will.

Shanna said...

Carbs, in the form of grains and potatoes, formed the basis of the American diet.

It says that absolutley no where in that article. If you follow one of the citations, their is a nifty chart that shows that vegetables were at the top, followed by milk/milk productsgrains, meat and fruit.

Their are a lot more details, but nothing you cited says 'grains and potatoes' were the basis of the diet. It just says we ate them. Which is true.

cubanbob said...

Alex said...
Q also fails to comprehend that obesity has exploded with HFCS explosion in everything. Coincidence? I think not.

7/24/12 2:55 PM

Blame Fidel Castro. Before Castro what is currently being used as a sweetener, HFCS was cane sugar. Cuban cane sugar.

Micheal: seriously unless you actually are in the top 1% you don't pay squat in taxes or subsidies for anyone. It's jerks like you that make we wish the airlines were regulated again like in early 70's so people like you that used to ride busses will go back to riding busses and people like me than can afford air tickets can get what used be offered in coach, bigger, wider seats with legroom and service and not have to sit next to jerks like you.

Q, you are just as arrogant and insufferable an ass as your Star Trek namesake.

Of course mid 19th century Irish subsistence farmers were living the life of Reilly, why they could work like donkey's all day long, all that physical exercise and eat potatoes to their hearts content and never get fat. Just like a good portion of the third world lives today, lots of hard physical work and a relatively low amount of daily caloric consumption. I f that is the lifestyle you wish for yourself, go for it, but honestly no one gives a crap on what you think or your snarkiness.

Michael said...

Cuba bob. Notwithstanding your country of origin you are a bit of a presumptive prick. I ride first class, I am in the one percent and I dont like fatties even if they have bespoke suits. Even in first class they drip onto my side. I pay enough in taxes to fatten legions. So fuck off dipshit.

Q said...

Of course mid 19th century Irish subsistence farmers were living the life of Reilly, why they could work like donkey's all day long, all that physical exercise and eat potatoes to their hearts content and never get fat. Just like a good portion of the third world lives today, lots of hard physical work and a relatively low amount of daily caloric consumption. I f that is the lifestyle you wish for yourself, go for it, but honestly no one gives a crap on what you think or your snarkiness.





The point, which I apparently need to spell pout for you slowly and with visual aids, is that people get fat when calories in > calories out.

Or, as you put it without grasping what was going on, "lots of hard physical work and a relatively low amount of daily caloric consumption".

There is nothing inherently wrong with eating lots of potatoes, or lots of most things, provided you balance the calories you take in from potatoes with the amount of calories you expend each day.

Though you are too dumb to realize it, you were actually agreeing with my point.

Q said...

It says that absolutley no where in that article. If you follow one of the citations, their is a nifty chart that shows that vegetables were at the top,


Jesus Christ, you are stupid! Or stubborn, perhaps.

I already pointed out to you that the single most common vegetable eaten was potatoes. That's "carbs" to you.


The typical family ate home-grown, seasonal fruits and vegetables, unless they had the foresight to "put up" some of their previous year's crop. Had you lived in 1908, you would have eaten potatoes, of some variety, at least once a day. You might also have enjoyed tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, turnips, beets or asparagus


Carbs, you fool. Carbs! What do you think is in potatoes and turnips and beets and carrots? Carbohydrates!

"No, they ate vegetables, not carbs!"

Why not just walk around with a big sign on your back saying "Kick me, I'm stupid"?

sleepless nights said...

I'm tired of having to wait 3x as long to make a safe left turn because I don't drive an SUV. :-) (Really.)

And I'm tired of cars being UGLY. They've looked like bloated tin cans for a while. I found an aerodynamic looking one, but it took a while, and it was the only one at any price range in a very popular line. Engineers love it.

Soft drinks: it's just such a silly law. What about people who want to buy in bulk? When I drank soft drinks in student years, I'd get a huge one every time I ordered a pizza and keep it in the mini fridge.

Fat Americans; I honestly think it's often a sign of having copious minor hoices in the areas that don't count (food, media, consumer goods) and not so much choice in the areas that do (zip code, housing, job/career, healthcare, fuel costs, *government*).

So if you want to help, amp up the economy with real jobs, so people can have real lives.

AllieOop said...

Ricpic, a low carb diet is moderate protein, low carb, high fat. Ketogenic diets are actually being used now to TREAT kidney failure.

AllieOop said...

Fat and protein are metabolized differently than carbs. This is basic knowledge. What diet do diabetics eat, why? What does carb injestion do to blood sugar and insulin levels? Why is not good to have high levels of circulating insulin?

If one has Metabolic Syndrome they have insulin resistance, high lipids, hypertension, that's just for starters.

Rusty said...

You know what else is good?

Croisant with nutella.

Especially if the croisant is warm.


Even if I wasn't fat, I'd still be indescibably ugly.

maybe we should do something about ugly people.
Tax em, I guess.


Wasn't all this supposed to be about cars?


Q said...
Do you not understand the issue of portion size?


I understand the issue of portion size perfectly, ed.

If you follow the thread you'll see that I'm pointing out that people get fat not by eating carbs, but by eating too much. Too big a portion size, in other words.


You're a joyless sod, aren't you.

AllieOop said...

Michael, if you or any human gained 100, you would become insulin resistant. Endocrinologists are beginning to call fat an endocrine organ, fat releases substances that can and will affect your health.

That layer of fat that obese humans carry, especially the internal fat attached to organs, is NOT inert.

Michael said...

Allie Oop: so insulin fesistance is the result, not thecause of obesity. Just as i thought

cubanbob said...

Michael said...
Cuba bob. Notwithstanding your country of origin you are a bit of a presumptive prick. I ride first class, I am in the one percent and I dont like fatties even if they have bespoke suits. Even in first class they drip onto my side. I pay enough in taxes to fatten legions. So fuck off dipshit.

7/24/12 4:44 PM

Good for you that you are in the top one percent. I don't know what airlines you fly on that you have the problems you mention,I somehow don't have that problem when I fly first class but that is your problem, not mine. As for dipshit and prick, great job of self description.

Q you are a legend in your own mind, elswhere not so much. Poor people eat what they because SURPRISE! they are poor. Not necessarily because thats what they like. So what's your point (besides beclowing yourself) that 19th century Irish poor were slim because they worked like farm animals and ate even less because that is all they could afford? Keep digging.

Bob Ellison said...

Michael, go to bed.

AllieOop said...

Michael, it isn't clear what came first, the chicken or the egg. Slender people also develop insulin resistance and diabetes, thanks to our Standard American Diet and bad genetics.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

our Standard American Diet

That is an interesting phrase. I wonder what the 'Standard American Diet' actually is and what people THINK that it is.

I imagine that the standard varies greatly from location to location and with ethnic influences as well as socioeconomic status.

Having traveled extensively across the country in my lifetime, I know that what is considered standard in one area would be very weird in another.

I bet if we all wrote down what we ate for a couple of weeks and compared it to each other....there would be very little commonality. Hmmmm..... that might be a good blogging project.

Palladian said...

As a fat person with a recent, completely healthy medical assessment, I'd just like to leave this thread with a link to my food photographs as a hearty fuck-you to the anti-fat weirdos who continue their attempts to afflict the rest of us with their abstemious, deeply psychological misery.

Bon app├ętit!

Joe Schmoe said...

Palladian, that is some bad-ass-looking cassoulet you got there. I hope it was as good as it looks.