26 ms·

Dear American Consumers: Please don’t start eating healthfully

313 points by ph0rque 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago
> The guidelines said that foods advertised to children must provide “a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.” I've never received a convincing explanation of why advertising to children shouldn't be generally banned.
- rosser 13y ago
  Because if you don't start throwing advertising at them when they're children, they'll be less susceptible to it when their brains mature? (I wish I could say I was wholly joking...)
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    Should we use the law to stop everything we consider a bad influence on our children? I guess this talk of regulating food advertising proves it isn't just the right that makes "won't somebody think of the children" arguments.
    - rosser 13y ago
      To my mind, there are "think of the children" arguments, and there are "think of the children" arguments. One uses "think of the children" as an excuse to enact broader control over society. Witness kiddie porn being the argument against P2P and PGP, or trying to censor "satanic" or sexually explicit lyrics, or any of a litany of other such nonsense claims. The other uses it to remind people that this shit actually, you know, affects the children.
      - visural 13y ago
        It's also worth bearing in mind the needs of the many, vs. the needs of the few. With the kiddie porn issues, generally the number of children being talked about is a very small minority of the total, and usually the issue under discussion has only indirect possibility of helping those children. However advertisement of poor food choices to children is something almost all children are subjected to on a daily basis, therefore when discussing regulation we can see that the majority of children will be beneficiaries.
- mosqutip 13y ago
  Because selling to their parents is hard! Oh wait, you said "convincing". Erm...
- brown9-2 13y ago
  I think a ban would run into some First Amendment issues.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    I am not convinced advertisement are speech. They are closer to business activity. Also you can create free speech zones on TV akin to the ones where the security herded protesters while Bush was showing on public events. You are free to tell whatever you want except in these time slots when you must shut up.
- throwit1979 13y ago
  Well, for one thing, some people believe that it is not the role of the Almighty State to dictate and micromanage every single action or inaction that businesses and individuals take. Sometimes these people have the audacity to believe that businesses should be permitted to voluntarily exchange with broadcasters and that parents should be permitted to make their own choices with regard to the content their children consume. Anyway, I agree. I don't buy this whole "liberty" nonsense either.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That freedom of action is generally predicated on the idea of competent individuals and businesses interacting voluntarily. When dealing with children that rationale goes out the window, because children are not competent to voluntarily participate in the economy. There is very little that is more in the province of the state to micromanage, even in a libertarian utopia, than interactions between businesses and people who are legally incompetent, like children. If your counter-argument is predicated on businesses freely exchanging with parents to convince them what products to feed their children, I fully agree that they should be free to do that, but that's distinct from advertising to children directly.
    - nsxwolf 13y ago
      throwit hardly seems to be talking about a libertarian utopia. Kids are susceptible to advertising. They're also susceptible to what their parents teach them. For many of the first years of their lives, they have absolutely no ability to purchase any of these products for themselves. Is it really so much to ask that we be allowed to make our own decisions about food? Come on, we're talking about food! Not medicine. Not heavy machinery or automobiles or airplanes or nuclear energy. Food!
      - rayiner 13y ago
        I'm not saying he's proposing a libertarian utopia. I'm saying that even in a libertarian utopia, regulating interactions between people who are competent to participate freely in the economy and those who are not is reasonably the province of the state. I'm not talking about limiting anybody's decisions. I'm talking about regulating interactions between businesses and people who are incompetent to make their own decisions.
- mseebach 13y ago
  That would make a lot of sense, but the explanation is, quite simply, that advertising is speech, and you can't go around banning speech because you don't like what it says and to who it's addressed.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Actually, commercial speech is among the least protected forms of free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech
  - mattstreet 13y ago
    Unless of course it contains a few arbitrary words.
- SCdF 13y ago
  So I think you can't advertise bad food to kids in my country (the few times I've seen kids advertising it's for toys, not lollies), but honestly I think the stuff that is worse is advertising to mothers. Some of those are disgustingly predatory.
  - zevyoura 13y ago
    But at least they're preying on adults who have fully formed brains.
- medell 13y ago
  I fell hard for those Fruit Roll-up commercials in my younger years.
- shaggyfrog 13y ago
  Sometimes it's subtle. Look at the second picture: what kind of cereal is on a low shelf within that child's reach? And what kind is higher up where mom is reaching?
- robobenjie 13y ago
  To pay for the development of children's entertainment. Public television is wonderful but I bet all of us look back fondly on a show that we loved as children that would not have existed without ads to pay for its production.
  - gbog 13y ago
    So we feed kids with ads in order to feed them with tv?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I wonder if young adults in two or three decades, the ones growing up with netflix and amazon instant video accounts, will have to say the same. I know I cannot already, since I grew up without cable television and had most of my childhood televised entertainment provided for me through public broadcasting and rented/bought VHS. I'll admit that my circumstances were unusual though.
  - hatcravat 13y ago
    Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion: Without children's entertainment, kids would be forced to read free books from the library or go play outside. The horror! Look, shared cultural nostalgia is great, and all, but I'm not sure that makes for a good reason to allow advertizing to kids.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Until you try watching an episode as an adult and realize it was complete and utter shlock. That's not to say good kids' stuff doesn't exist, but I see nothing wrong with just murdering the whole model of Media-Driven Consumption, from food to toys to fashion, in its sleep. With a knife. It's bad, and society should feel bad for allowing it.
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  Define "advertising to children". Does that mean that TV shows targeted to children can't have advertising? Goodbye kids TV (not all of it is bad). Venue aside, what are the signs of being targeted to children? Show too many kids in the frame, the wrong color scheme, the wrong narration style or fonts? How close can you get? We talked about "airtightness" in the taxation thread, but I'm realizing there's another issue. If the law isn't carefully defined, it could be possible to interpret nearly any advertising as being targeted, in part at least, to children. This is the kind of thing that will slide toward more restriction under the pressure of various kinds of activists, once we get the idea that we can ban advertising based on its audience.
  - satori99 13y ago
    You raise good points, but I still think there are legitimate concerns. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/fastfood-logos-are-branded-on-young-brains-study/article3932055.ece http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/fastfood-logos-...
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      The conclusions of that article that are nonsensical, at least those that weren't already established. In particular, the evidence cited doesn't support drawing the causality arrow in that direction. Why on earth would a logo for a car company or something stimulate the same areas as one for food? That's not how people work, and it's not specific to children.
  - alanfalcon 13y ago
    The (live) children's TV my daughter watches is on PBS. The extent of the advertising she is exposed to while watching it is the idea that giving money to PBS allows them to continue to show the TV programs. The other children's TV she watches is on Netflix, with no advertising. While some of those shows exist because of advertising during their first run, if that option weren't present then something would fill the void. Anyway, "advertising to children" is already specifically defined and regulated in many countries. The question is simply how far to take those regulations under existing definitions.
kunai 13y ago
While I agree with most of what is in the article, I always wince when I see whole grains advertised as healthful foods. They're not. Wheat contains gluten, a known gastrointestinal irritant, and celiac and IBD patients know that wheat is one thing you want to stay away from. It can also trigger inflammation and cause serious health problems for anyone with an inflammatory condition. Perhaps proposing gluten-free foods is a better idea. In addition, the guidelines for "advertising to children" are quite peculiar, and I don't know why children should be advertised to at all. What even constitutes advertising to children is not quite clear either.
- pranjalv123 13y ago
  Of course, most people don't have gluten-related inflammatory conditions, so whole wheat is good for them!
  - lysol 13y ago
    In fact, it's statistically rare. Unless you mean that self-diagnosed wannabe celiac stuff.
    - mjfern 13y ago
      It's called gluten intolerance (or sensitivity), not "self-diagnosed wannabe celiac stuff" and last time I checked it affected something like 5% of the US population (some state the incidence rate is as high as ~20%). Most people just live with the stomach discomfort because it's difficult to try a gluten-free diet. And dismissive comments like yours also aren't helpful in motivating people to experiment. I lived with stomach issues for 30+ years, and after trying a myriad of solutions, from eliminating dairy to exercise, I finally tried eliminating gluten from my diet. That did the trick.
      - awolf 13y ago
        Exactly. The jury is still out on exactly how prevalent gluten intolerance is, but the percentage is definitely a lot higher than most would guess. A second problem is that there is a whole spectrum of how intolerant people can be to gluten. Some people will simply find they are a little more constipated or gassy the next day if they eat gluten and some will find that they need to urgently visit the restroom 30 minutes after consuming it. Neither of those groups of people would be considered celiacs. Many of the people in those groups go through live oblivious as to the cause. Unfortunately, ignorance like that of lysol's grandparent comment dominates this debate. It's amazing and a bit scary the number of otherwise intelligent people who blindly assume that what is true for them is true for everyone. It's as if the mere fact that some people prefer to avoid gluten in their diets is a personal affront to them. It baffles me.
batgaijin 13y ago
Jesus figure out how to package soylent already. Honestly, if I could buy a vaguely appetizing drink at 7/11 and knew that it had 1/3 of my daily nutrients, I'd be pretty damn ecstatic.
- willbill 13y ago
  Until you tasted it...
  - dageshi 13y ago
    Just add sugar...
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  Try Soylent Orange, you can make it at home cheaply and easily. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjA38cUd4BZBdGZYM012N0JZTzEtVk05MVF4dlZyZ2c&usp=drive_web https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjA38cUd4BZBdGZ...
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Look up a medical supply store. There are various formulations available which were developed by folk better-versed in the research.
- mmagin 13y ago
  Can all of you who just want to be disembodied brains please figure out a way to do so? The rest of us would like your spare organs. Thanks.
  - batgaijin 13y ago
    Hey I like my extreme sports just like anyone else. I just don't get why we can't have nutritious mass produced dollar meals.
DanBC 13y ago
> For example, any food marketed to children must “contain at least 50% by weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.” UK advice is to give children full fat milk until they are 2, and not skimmed until they are 5, and only then if they have a good diet. This is because of the fat soluble vitamins, and also because children need the energy. As part of a sensible diet full fat milk is fine. This advice is part of the healthy drinking stuff. Children should have water or full fat milk. If you give them fruit juice dilute it at least 10 parts water to 1 part juice. Use a free-flow beaker, or a straw cup, or a regular cup, rather than a sippy cup. All this advice from government sounds a bit preachy. But tooth removal is a significant cause for hospitalisation for UK children under 5. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/10/tooth-health-poverty-caries http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/10/tooth-health-p...) Tooth care (http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2366.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63 http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2366.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubC...) squash and fruit juice better than fizzy drinks? (http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/are-squash-and-pure-fruit-juice-better-for-children-than-fizzy-drinks.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63 http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/are-squash-and-pure-fruit-juice-...) Cups and beakers (http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/drinks-and-cups-children.aspx#close http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/drinks...)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - kibibu 13y ago
    Do you have any evidence of this? I would be shocked if food labeling laws let this happen without explicitly calling it some variant of "flavoured milk".
    - hkmurakami 13y ago
      hmm googled around but now I may be misremembering so I'll delete the parent post. Thanks for the correction!
guylhem 13y ago
The proposal mandating 50% of something in food marketed to kids is stupid nonsense. If anything, reason should tell you that evolution must have selected for a "resiliant" digestive system - so much that it's thriving on anything we throw at it. So why bother increasing the costs - besides for control and power? Do you have any reason to believe the experts know better what is good for one's health? Do they have large scale studies properly done? (I mean not on rats but on humans - it's kinda tough to force them to eat only what's prescribed during a study, and you can't follow them all day long for years) Do you want so much to reduce customer choice and force your thoughts on them? This is the polar opposite to freedom, and based on a flawed methodology. There are some evidence that a given regime or another may be beneficial for a given disease, but nothing convincing yet to the best of my knowledge when taking into account all the diseases (you don't get to hand pick the diseases you'll get). IMHO, the proper methodology would require a large scale datamining operation along with biological tests and proper outcome monitoring. We just don't have all the technology to do that yet on say at least 10 million humans for 10 years (and that wouldn't be large scale - there are 6 billions of us, and with a longer lifespan!). 10 millions over 6 billions would be a 0.0016 ie 0.16% sample - with such a small sample on only 1/7 of the human lifespan, I wish you good luck to anyone willing to take into account genetic polymorphism, intolerance to some food (milk, gluten) etc. It will just be an exercice in "manually correcting" so many things that the end result should not be trusted. Basically, at the moment we don't know for sure what's best, and we can't. To quote Djikstra, I'd say such laws and rules are just the root of all evil - premature optimization!!! EDIT: Downvotes as always. I find that downvoting for a disagreement is not fair play. You don't like my opinion? I would be delighted to be proved wrong, with facts please.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  Most researchers who publish studies are unfamiliar with the scientific method and hypothesis nullification. Either that, or it's not in the interests of the publishers to properly apply these concepts in their studies. We've gotten to a scary point where "science" is now getting more and more into the hands of the public and become a consumer good purely for consumption in the form of news. People love studies that confirm something they already believe. It's bad for business to dispel myths that people have an emotional investment in.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Interesting. Over the years, this is the third or fourth version of this same story that I've read. Read one on low carbs. Read one on low fat. Now this one. The assumption here, as it was in the others, is that we now know what works and what doesn't. And that forces beyond our control conspire to keep us fat. In this version, the thesis is that some form of certification system for marketing to children can cure the obesity epidemic. Beats me. But I'll bet twenty bucks that a decade or two from now we'll be reading the same type of article, only with different kinds of suggested cures. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions, which have changed drastically in the last 100 years. I doubt controlling marketing material will have a long-lasting effect, but anything is worth a shot. It is a very serious problem. Looking at the recent past, I'd be just a bit more humble about it.
- dschobel 13y ago
  "I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions, which have changed drastically in the last 100 years. I doubt controlling marketing material will have a long-lasting effect, but anything is worth a shot. It is a very serious problem." Which is it then, 'nothing wrong' or 'serious problem'?
  - DanielBMarkham 13y ago
    Nothing structurally or behaviorally unusual. There has been no new change in the species or some external factor that has caused the obesity epidemic. It's all based on changing external conditions, mostly food availability. So there's no "disease" to cure, and no mastermind manipulation of the population by forces using [insert latest ideas here]. If anything, this leads me to believe that we'll need to take evolution into our own hands to fix this. Various measures like this could be a useful stopgap. Like I said, beats me. Happy to confess ignorance here (as opposed to seemingly most every other commenter who speaks on this topic) If pressed, however, also happy to provide more speculation. As an obese person, I can definitely add that the disease metaphor, like the "moral blemish" metaphor before it, in my opinion does more damage than good. People come up with these ideas, then start wrapping them in the conspiracy theory of the month garb. Enough with the evil corporations, corrupt governments, sick people, lazy no-goods. These highly emotionally-charged models of analysis are not helping the public conversation. For the entire history of the species nobody has had to worry about obesity until very recently. It follows that social structures and the physiology of humans are not the changing variable. The only obvious changing variable is food availability. So yes, obesity is a public health hazard, but it's not one based on some fault with people or social structures. It's simply the result of changing environmental conditions for which the species is ill-prepared.
CoryG89 13y ago
Is healthfully really a word..? I would have tried to phrase it 'eating healthily' off the top of my head.
- Moto7451 13y ago
  Yes, it's the adverb of healthful. Healthily is the adverb of healthy. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthful http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthful http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthy Kinda/sorta like the difference between affect and effect.
- shellac 13y ago
  'Healthfully' (as in healthful) or 'healthily' (as in healthy) are both fine according to the OED. Personally I've never heard of 'healthful'. Looking around Fowler's Modern English Usage suggests preference for 'healthful' is a U.S. thing (an even there it seems people are unaware of it, judging by the comments at a U.S. dictionary site). Fowler's also notes 'healthful' is considered 'old-fashioned and literary' or 'formal' by some teaching dictionaries.
throwaway1980 13y ago
This gallery was going around recently: http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs Apparently a journalist asked one family in each of 20 different countries to gather all of the food they bought in one week and take a picture. It's a fascinating look at global diets. The UK is even more disturbing than the US.
- unreal37 13y ago
  Mexico is interesting. A table full of fresh food, and... what looks like 12 2-liter bottles of Coke. On the USA table, there is literally nothing fresh. Every food is packaged, plus McDonalds, Burger King, 2 pizzas... Plus Diet Coke of course. And in Germany, again looks like a lot of healthy food there but then there's like 4 bottles of wine and 30 bottles of beer. Uh, that's a weeks worth of booze is it? And finally, with Chad. Three bags of something (rice I suppose) and a bottle of water. No fresh food, like the Americans. But compare the two pics side by side - wow.
  - throwaway1980 13y ago
    Side note: it used to be that Mexican Coke contained cane sugar instead of HFCS. Not sure any more.
- Kurtz79 13y ago
  This must be quite old actually, I remember seeing it many years ago in a magazine. But it's very interesting anyway, thanks for the link!
volandovengo 13y ago
I just started the paleo diet and lost 10 lbs this last month. Overwhelmingly I've been amazed to see that most people seem to have no regard whatsoever for their nutrition. Things go into their body but it often has 0 nutricional value. Also - it's actually really really hard to eat well. Since so many restaurants cater to what people are familiar with, there's next to no alternative for people trying to eat nutritious food.
- iamthebest 13y ago
  > Also - it's actually really really hard to eat well. Not to mention it's expensive. I spend about $1200 a month just at Whole Foods, mostly on organic and raw foods. And that's just for myself.
  - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
    You are paying for affiliation, not quality.
    - iamthebest 13y ago
      The thing is, I read "Super Immunity" by Joel Fuhrman and I've been obsessed with following his recommendation of eating greens, onions, mushrooms, beans, berries and seeds every day. Whole Foods is the only place around here where I can get all of these grown organically. Pesticides scare me. Especially since I can't be bothered to wash my food before eating it. But as I understand it, if you use pesticides, then the plants don't produce their own natural chemicals that fight off pests and other symbiotic organisms. I don't remember where I read it but according to my research those chemicals are very beneficial part of the total nutriment.
  - zevyoura 13y ago
    That is a ridiculously large amount to be spending on groceries, even if you eat every meal at home. For comparison, I think I eat quite well and I spend well under $300/month (my goal is $50/week). A lot of this depends on your area, but I highly recommend checking out any ethnic[1] grocery stores in your area. The supermarket I shop at is, large, clean, and has comparable produce for 1/2 the price or less as the conventional supermarkets in the area. This is in Southern California, but I had a similar experience in Austin, TX and south-eastern Michigan, so I think it applies to most places in the US. Also, organic foods are nutritionally equivalent to conventionally grown foods according to the most recent research; you may want to reconsider your budgeting on that front. [1] I've been told this is not the politically correct term, but I'm not sure what the right one is; suggestions welcome! What I mean by this in reality is usually something like "Indian/Chinese/Mexican grocer."
whiddershins 13y ago
No one knows what food is healthy and what food isn't. Full stop. The more you read about this, the more you realize it is so. Government advice and regulation about healthy eating has likely been a contributing factor to a huge explosion in chronic disease. Enough is enough, improve and expand mandatory food labeling and stay out of the rest. Meanwhile, no one should market anything to kids, if you really think about it.
- farinasa 13y ago
  Maybe we don't know what exact combination of foods is most healthy, but there are things we do know. For instance, we know that carbohydrates consist of a ton of readily available energy. And if you eat more energy than you burn, you store the energy as fat. Bad? Maybe not, but it can easily get you to a bad state of health. We also know that there are vitamins and minerals in leafy greens that we really do need. Since they are easy to eat and also contain fiber, yet are low in energy, they are very healthy. My best advice is to pick up on these sorts of tidbits, not the latest diet/trend/fad.
  - whiddershins 13y ago
    We don't know why people gain weight, and there are no known essential nutrients which cannot be acquired through eating cows. So what with all this talk about leafy grens? IMHO it is pseudoscience. (Although, I gotta admit, I feel a lot healthier when I EAT some leafy greens rather than when making a pedantic point)
    - farinasa 13y ago
      >We don't know why people gain weight We actually do. In simple terms, if you eat more than you can use, you will gain weight. It is slightly more complicated. I can explain more, but the web will do a better job than I can. The talk about leafy greens is that, we know they are low calorie, have essential vitamins and minerals, and provide fiber. Thus, they are definitely good for you. They don't harm you, they provide sustenance and other benefits and so your statement that we don't know what is healthy is just false.
jcampbell1 13y ago
I have a solution to the obesity epidemic, that would be realistic to implement. Right now the factors for what we analyse in nutrition is calories, macro nutrient content, and micronutrient content. What we really care about is satiation and satiety. These are words that no one talks about, and but get to the core of the issue. If I eat this food, how many calories will I consume before feeling full?(satiation). After eating this food, how long until I feel the need to eat again? (sateity). Unfortunately the research and measurements of these values is thin. We need to fix that. We already know things like whole milk better provides satiation and sateity than skim milk, and children that drink whole milk actaully have less obesity than skim milk drinkers. If we just measured and labeled foods with a sateity/satiation index (what we really care about), then people would actually have a chance to pick better foods. Right now it is damn near impossible to determine if eating eggs and bacon for breakfast is more likely to drive over eating vs cereal. It can be measured, but we just don't do it.
- lifeformed 13y ago
  That's an interesting idea. Is Satiation/sateity easily measurable? Is it proportionally consistent among everyone, or do some people get satiated more by some foods than others?
  - ihsw 13y ago
    It depends on many factors, from the objective to the subjective. Objectively the measurements would vary according to the people, eg: obese vs not obese, old vs young, ethnicity, dietary history, and so forth. Subjectively it would vary according to cultural norms and personal opinions, for example. Additionally people can be accustomed to certain foods regardless of such measurements. There is some serious interest in diets like Ketogenic or Paleolithic, which espouse similar dietary requirements to what the parent suggested (eg: whole milk has significantly more fat than skim milk, as such they affect satiation and satiety differently from each-other).
  - nijk 13y ago
    Satiety is on the label, written as fat/protein/fiber. Everything except carbs.
zobzu 13y ago
The best always end up being (IMO): - listen to your body - exercise some. doesn't have to be gym. even walking 30min a day is fine. - eat fresh food rather than frozen or processed food (hint: it requires cooking) - drink water, not soda or beer - Keep things balanced. Ying & yang principle applies basically everywhere. Including food types, salting, sweetening, etc. then you generally don't need to force diet upon you. you don't need medication. you don't need a "diet plan". you don't need to "hit the gym". you don't need to make extra efforts that you'll revert in 3month. you're also not going to get bulky or a skeleton. you're just going to get normal and healthy. of course, all the above take some effort. and its true that it's harder to find fresh food or proper food in general in the US than elsewhere, actually.
- unreal37 13y ago
  Contrary to what the exercise industry tells you in ads, you actually can't lose weight with exercise. Diet is almost always required to lose weight. Going to the gym for an hour, burning a measly 400 calories walking on a treadmill, and then celebrating that with a 800 calorie Smoothie after, is actually making people gain weight not lose.
  - nandemo 13y ago
    > Contrary to what the exercise industry tells you in ads, you actually can't lose weight with exercise. Diet is almost always required to lose weight. You can certainly lose weight by doing exercise and keeping your caloric intake constant. It might as well be that out of all people who want to lose weight, only a small % of people have the discipline/volition to follow such a plan. But that's a far cry from "you can't lose weight with exercise".
    - unreal37 13y ago
      I stand by my original statement. Unless you are on The Biggest Loser and exercising 8 hours per day, burning 5,000 calories per day with exercise, you have to control what you eat to lose weight. It can't be done with "1 hour of exercise, 3 times per week" as the TV commercials claim. You called it "caloric intake constant", but that's counting calories, and sounds like a diet to me. And most people unconsciously eat more after a workout. They don't think they do, but they do. [1] http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-Exercise-Makes-You-Eat-More-22721812 http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-Exercise-Makes-You-Eat-More-2272...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
spikels 13y ago
I read Scientific American most of my childhood - articles about physics, biology, math and especially the Amateur Scientist column (I so wanted to make that laser but had no vacuum pump). I loved it! Then in the 1990s something changed instead of being about new discoveries it began to cover news and to advocate for various causes, even political positions. Then they dropped the Amateur Scientist column. Why couldn't they stick to science instead of snarky articles like this hectoring every American to eat better? Were they afraid of Omni, Popular Science or Time? Perhaps this was a good business decision but I have no regrets about canceling my subscription. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur_Scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur_Scientist
nixpulvis 13y ago
Was this sarcasm... Seriously.
malandrew 13y ago
Ironically, I doubt the industry would lose as much money as is claimed. Instead they would mostly likely just reorganize themselves about being profitable by selling healthy foods. The only problem I see is how long it would take for them to reorganize around healthy foods.
dschiptsov 13y ago
yeah, don't - you will ruin the whole economy!))
JacobJans 13y ago
This article points to the very obvious problem that it is very profitable to sell unhealthy foods in the US. There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is caused by the government. We subsidize the growing of industrial corn, soy, and wheat. These are the primary ingredients of junk food -- and junk food is significantly cheaper because of these subsidies. The subsidies provided for growing fruits and vegetables are extremely low compared to the subsidies for these big '3' ingredients. There are reason Coca Cola is made with corn syrup in the US, and real sugar in Mexico. The reason is farm subsidies, which make the cost of corn significantly cheaper, and thus make the cost of a can of Coke much less to produce. A very simple step to fixing the obesity issue is to change the farm subsidies. The artificial government role in the market should be modified to support the growth of healthy foods, instead of supporting the growth of corn and soy. Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen due to the political climate that has existed for a long time. However, in my dream world, here's what I would do: Gradually transition farm subsidies away from big industrial farms, to small local farms that produce a variety of crops. Over 10-15 years, all farms over a certain size would no longer be eligible for subsidies. Instead, small farms that produce and sell food to their local population would be eligible for subsidies. And they would get more for producing a diverse crop, and for certain organic practices. Ideally the cheap food would eventually be produced by tens of thousands of small farms that serve their local communities and are accountable to their local communities. Plus, a huge network of local farms would result in a very resilient food system -- one of the primary goals of food subsidies.
- wildgift 13y ago
  The other thing is weight. A bag of chips is 3 or 4 oz. A case of them is a few pounds. A similar sized box of vegetables is 15 or 20 pounds. The chips will last a few weeks. Vegetables will last a few days.
  - JacobJans 13y ago
    You're absolutely right about weight. One of the big concerns of an industrial food system is shipping. The other big concern is shelf life. Neither of these are nearly as big of a concern if you get your food from a local farmer. The health of the consumer is not much of a concern, except in terms of marketing. Right now, it is more expensive to buy local food from a farmers market than it is to buy industrial produced shipped from thousands of miles away. This should change, and it should change by shifting subsidies away from large industrial farms to small local farms.
elangoc 13y ago
I've been thinking for a long while, now, about how to stitch together the many threads of thought around diet, nutrition, environment, and economics: 1) eating a plant-based diet is healthier (Mark Bittman), or at the very least, eating natural things (Michael Pollan) 2) eating meat costs more, and it threatens the environment (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/worried-about-climate-change-eat-less-meat http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/...), including in China (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html) 3) for that matter, others foods besides meat that come from animals (ex: dairy) have the same effect. Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance) 4) nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet (http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-healthily-o-1-per-day/ http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-healthily-...) Lentils play an important part as a quality, cheap source of protein. 5) there are ways to make good food affordable to the people who can least afford it (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-truck-serves-san-diegos-homeless-d/ http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-truck-s...) In fact, the idea (or 'business model') of making necessary things affordable to the people who can least afford it as been around for 50 years (http://infinitevisionaries.com/ http://infinitevisionaries.com/) 6) a very important factor to incentivize people to switch diets is knowing that the food will taste good. While it might involve a slight change in cultural diet, this is absolutely possible (http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dosa-man-of-new-york http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dos...) 7) the vegetarian diet of Tamils in Tamil Nadu (India) and Tamil Eelam (Ceylon) is wide & varied, largely dairy-free, and mostly gluten free. This largely applies for the other South India states, too. The diet consists in large parts of lentils, leafy greens, vegetables, and spices. 8) in particular, the diet in Tamil Nadu/Tamil Eelam of 50 years ago should be examined, which is before the Green Revolution occurred in India. Back then, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.). 9) An unintended consequence of the Green Revolution in India and China in the 1950's is that, at least in India, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.) were dropped in favor of the far less nutritional white rice, which was for many just a once-in-a-while treat. In North India, the favored, newly-proliferated crop of choice was wheat. (Both rice and wheat are dreadfully water-intensive.) Brown rice doesn't exist there, but in the region, only people in Kerala and Tamil Eelam eat a red rice that is similarly nutritious. Of course, this is said to be not as nutritious as things like finger millet or "thinai" (similar to quinoa). 10) People talk about the importance of vitamin B12, and that you can only get it from animal based sources. But this diet has been around for 4,500 years, people have been just fine. (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civilization_food_how_scientists_are_figuring_out_what_curry_was_like.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civili...) I'm sure people have been vegetarian for at least 2,000 years of that, if I judge based on the Thirukkural (2,000 year old literature of virtuous maxims, of which 10 talk about not eating meat). There are athletes and body-builders in America who are vegetarian and vegan. So I really think that a restaurant (or at the least, food truck) should pop up selling a variety of vegan Tamil food at a very low price. This would solve so many problems. I've been thinking of this for a long while now, but I would be just happy if someone 'steals' the idea and runs with it. (note: I'm sure there are other ways to achieve low cost, high nutrition, vegan diets in varied, tasty ways, but this is part of my birth tradition. You can treat that as a disclaimer / proof of authenticity. For me, personally, I'm fairly lactose-intolerant, and I'm wondering now that I might be gluten intolerant. I've been trying to be more vegan/vegetarian for the past 5 months, and it's helped a lot in my finances. It hasn't negatively impacted exercising. I'm hoping to see more change once I start cooking!...)
whiddershins 13y ago
I have a solution for the obesity epidemic which would be difficult to implement, but might actually work: Address the socioeconomic and political factors that create so much poverty in our country, and which also depress income in general. We evolved to eat meat. The ethics of this I won't touch but the economics are only a sticking point if you assume we must have a poverty-stricken underclass in our country. And by poverty stricken underclass I mean anyone who can't afford a couple of lbs of free range organic meat per day. Do the math. Because most of our pre-civilization ancestors ate like that all the time. Why can't we afford the same? And don't say overpopulation. Back of the envelope math says the US could easily produce meat at those levels for around 600 million people. And modern societies have negative population growth in the wealthy demographics. So isn't the problem just the ever increasing number of people who are being dragged in to poverty?
mung 13y ago
>If one company didn’t, their competitors would, so we all kind of have to do it. There is a point here lots of people, especially western countries, and most especially Americans miss. So many people think government regulation takes away freedom and unfettered capitalism gives it. People whose own interests aren't even represented by that idea. And we all suffer because of this.
kokey 13y ago
I don't think the food industry would be too worried about lost revenue. They will be more worried about the cost of having to create and replace whole new ranges of products to fit into these guidelines, but in the end they will deliver the same wide spectrum of foods as they do today and fit into the guidelines. Perhaps it will raise the prices of the products generally, which will help with overeating but will also make products falling outside of the guidelines more attractive. The irony is that in 10 years time our 'understanding' of what is healthy and what is not will probably have changed radically.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
So is it that we have to eat unhealthy at the gun point? No! We are free to eat whatever we want. And if most people want to eat poison then that's what the free market economy will provide them with. It reminds me a little bit the situation with the banks. Somehow when times were good and everybody and their uncle could get a loan everybody loved Goldman Sachs CEO. But now, when it is pay off time people just hate the banks. Just shows a hell lot about people's attitudes (me! me! me!) The same with the food industry. It's not my fault I eat like pig day and night, it's because the commercial on TV told me to do it. Sure, and if they told you to eat shit, you would eat shit, right? Socialism is the love of blaming somone for your own failures. Free people not only make decisions, but also take responsibility for them. People who don't, should live for some time in a country where 'Dear Leader' will decide for them how they should live their lives because there is no difference to them anyway. I'm tired of this BS. Used to have a coworker who was eating all the time. She had a small refrigerator in her cubicle. And of course, yeah, she wants universal healthcare. So I and others will pay for her bad choices. This is just immoral.
crusso 13y ago
So we're too stupid to pick out healthy food, but we're smart enough to vote in people who know what's best for us and are ethical enough to not abuse their power for self-enrichment? Let's also ignore the fact that most of the food industry's processed low-fat crap was a direct result of the government's earlier attempts to tell us that fat was evil and shove the food pyramid down our throats.

313 points by ph0rque 13y ago

> The guidelines said that foods advertised to children must provide “a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.” I've never received a convincing explanation of why advertising to children shouldn't be generally banned.

rosser 13y ago
Because if you don't start throwing advertising at them when they're children, they'll be less susceptible to it when their brains mature? (I wish I could say I was wholly joking...)
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  Should we use the law to stop everything we consider a bad influence on our children? I guess this talk of regulating food advertising proves it isn't just the right that makes "won't somebody think of the children" arguments.
  - rosser 13y ago
    To my mind, there are "think of the children" arguments, and there are "think of the children" arguments. One uses "think of the children" as an excuse to enact broader control over society. Witness kiddie porn being the argument against P2P and PGP, or trying to censor "satanic" or sexually explicit lyrics, or any of a litany of other such nonsense claims. The other uses it to remind people that this shit actually, you know, affects the children.
    - visural 13y ago
      It's also worth bearing in mind the needs of the many, vs. the needs of the few. With the kiddie porn issues, generally the number of children being talked about is a very small minority of the total, and usually the issue under discussion has only indirect possibility of helping those children. However advertisement of poor food choices to children is something almost all children are subjected to on a daily basis, therefore when discussing regulation we can see that the majority of children will be beneficiaries.
mosqutip 13y ago
Because selling to their parents is hard! Oh wait, you said "convincing". Erm...
brown9-2 13y ago
I think a ban would run into some First Amendment issues.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I am not convinced advertisement are speech. They are closer to business activity. Also you can create free speech zones on TV akin to the ones where the security herded protesters while Bush was showing on public events. You are free to tell whatever you want except in these time slots when you must shut up.
throwit1979 13y ago
Well, for one thing, some people believe that it is not the role of the Almighty State to dictate and micromanage every single action or inaction that businesses and individuals take. Sometimes these people have the audacity to believe that businesses should be permitted to voluntarily exchange with broadcasters and that parents should be permitted to make their own choices with regard to the content their children consume. Anyway, I agree. I don't buy this whole "liberty" nonsense either.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That freedom of action is generally predicated on the idea of competent individuals and businesses interacting voluntarily. When dealing with children that rationale goes out the window, because children are not competent to voluntarily participate in the economy. There is very little that is more in the province of the state to micromanage, even in a libertarian utopia, than interactions between businesses and people who are legally incompetent, like children. If your counter-argument is predicated on businesses freely exchanging with parents to convince them what products to feed their children, I fully agree that they should be free to do that, but that's distinct from advertising to children directly.
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    throwit hardly seems to be talking about a libertarian utopia. Kids are susceptible to advertising. They're also susceptible to what their parents teach them. For many of the first years of their lives, they have absolutely no ability to purchase any of these products for themselves. Is it really so much to ask that we be allowed to make our own decisions about food? Come on, we're talking about food! Not medicine. Not heavy machinery or automobiles or airplanes or nuclear energy. Food!
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I'm not saying he's proposing a libertarian utopia. I'm saying that even in a libertarian utopia, regulating interactions between people who are competent to participate freely in the economy and those who are not is reasonably the province of the state. I'm not talking about limiting anybody's decisions. I'm talking about regulating interactions between businesses and people who are incompetent to make their own decisions.
mseebach 13y ago
That would make a lot of sense, but the explanation is, quite simply, that advertising is speech, and you can't go around banning speech because you don't like what it says and to who it's addressed.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Actually, commercial speech is among the least protected forms of free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech
- mattstreet 13y ago
  Unless of course it contains a few arbitrary words.
SCdF 13y ago
So I think you can't advertise bad food to kids in my country (the few times I've seen kids advertising it's for toys, not lollies), but honestly I think the stuff that is worse is advertising to mothers. Some of those are disgustingly predatory.
- zevyoura 13y ago
  But at least they're preying on adults who have fully formed brains.
medell 13y ago
I fell hard for those Fruit Roll-up commercials in my younger years.
shaggyfrog 13y ago
Sometimes it's subtle. Look at the second picture: what kind of cereal is on a low shelf within that child's reach? And what kind is higher up where mom is reaching?
robobenjie 13y ago
To pay for the development of children's entertainment. Public television is wonderful but I bet all of us look back fondly on a show that we loved as children that would not have existed without ads to pay for its production.
- gbog 13y ago
  So we feed kids with ads in order to feed them with tv?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I wonder if young adults in two or three decades, the ones growing up with netflix and amazon instant video accounts, will have to say the same. I know I cannot already, since I grew up without cable television and had most of my childhood televised entertainment provided for me through public broadcasting and rented/bought VHS. I'll admit that my circumstances were unusual though.
- hatcravat 13y ago
  Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion: Without children's entertainment, kids would be forced to read free books from the library or go play outside. The horror! Look, shared cultural nostalgia is great, and all, but I'm not sure that makes for a good reason to allow advertizing to kids.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Until you try watching an episode as an adult and realize it was complete and utter shlock. That's not to say good kids' stuff doesn't exist, but I see nothing wrong with just murdering the whole model of Media-Driven Consumption, from food to toys to fashion, in its sleep. With a knife. It's bad, and society should feel bad for allowing it.
andrewflnr 13y ago
Define "advertising to children". Does that mean that TV shows targeted to children can't have advertising? Goodbye kids TV (not all of it is bad). Venue aside, what are the signs of being targeted to children? Show too many kids in the frame, the wrong color scheme, the wrong narration style or fonts? How close can you get? We talked about "airtightness" in the taxation thread, but I'm realizing there's another issue. If the law isn't carefully defined, it could be possible to interpret nearly any advertising as being targeted, in part at least, to children. This is the kind of thing that will slide toward more restriction under the pressure of various kinds of activists, once we get the idea that we can ban advertising based on its audience.
- satori99 13y ago
  You raise good points, but I still think there are legitimate concerns. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/fastfood-logos-are-branded-on-young-brains-study/article3932055.ece http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/fastfood-logos-...
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    The conclusions of that article that are nonsensical, at least those that weren't already established. In particular, the evidence cited doesn't support drawing the causality arrow in that direction. Why on earth would a logo for a car company or something stimulate the same areas as one for food? That's not how people work, and it's not specific to children.
- alanfalcon 13y ago
  The (live) children's TV my daughter watches is on PBS. The extent of the advertising she is exposed to while watching it is the idea that giving money to PBS allows them to continue to show the TV programs. The other children's TV she watches is on Netflix, with no advertising. While some of those shows exist because of advertising during their first run, if that option weren't present then something would fill the void. Anyway, "advertising to children" is already specifically defined and regulated in many countries. The question is simply how far to take those regulations under existing definitions.

kunai 13y ago

While I agree with most of what is in the article, I always wince when I see whole grains advertised as healthful foods. They're not. Wheat contains gluten, a known gastrointestinal irritant, and celiac and IBD patients know that wheat is one thing you want to stay away from. It can also trigger inflammation and cause serious health problems for anyone with an inflammatory condition. Perhaps proposing gluten-free foods is a better idea. In addition, the guidelines for "advertising to children" are quite peculiar, and I don't know why children should be advertised to at all. What even constitutes advertising to children is not quite clear either.

pranjalv123 13y ago
Of course, most people don't have gluten-related inflammatory conditions, so whole wheat is good for them!
- lysol 13y ago
  In fact, it's statistically rare. Unless you mean that self-diagnosed wannabe celiac stuff.
  - mjfern 13y ago
    It's called gluten intolerance (or sensitivity), not "self-diagnosed wannabe celiac stuff" and last time I checked it affected something like 5% of the US population (some state the incidence rate is as high as ~20%). Most people just live with the stomach discomfort because it's difficult to try a gluten-free diet. And dismissive comments like yours also aren't helpful in motivating people to experiment. I lived with stomach issues for 30+ years, and after trying a myriad of solutions, from eliminating dairy to exercise, I finally tried eliminating gluten from my diet. That did the trick.
    - awolf 13y ago
      Exactly. The jury is still out on exactly how prevalent gluten intolerance is, but the percentage is definitely a lot higher than most would guess. A second problem is that there is a whole spectrum of how intolerant people can be to gluten. Some people will simply find they are a little more constipated or gassy the next day if they eat gluten and some will find that they need to urgently visit the restroom 30 minutes after consuming it. Neither of those groups of people would be considered celiacs. Many of the people in those groups go through live oblivious as to the cause. Unfortunately, ignorance like that of lysol's grandparent comment dominates this debate. It's amazing and a bit scary the number of otherwise intelligent people who blindly assume that what is true for them is true for everyone. It's as if the mere fact that some people prefer to avoid gluten in their diets is a personal affront to them. It baffles me.

batgaijin 13y ago

Jesus figure out how to package soylent already. Honestly, if I could buy a vaguely appetizing drink at 7/11 and knew that it had 1/3 of my daily nutrients, I'd be pretty damn ecstatic.

willbill 13y ago
Until you tasted it...
- dageshi 13y ago
  Just add sugar...
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
Try Soylent Orange, you can make it at home cheaply and easily. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjA38cUd4BZBdGZYM012N0JZTzEtVk05MVF4dlZyZ2c&usp=drive_web https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjA38cUd4BZBdGZ...
jacques_chester 13y ago
Look up a medical supply store. There are various formulations available which were developed by folk better-versed in the research.
mmagin 13y ago
Can all of you who just want to be disembodied brains please figure out a way to do so? The rest of us would like your spare organs. Thanks.
- batgaijin 13y ago
  Hey I like my extreme sports just like anyone else. I just don't get why we can't have nutritious mass produced dollar meals.

DanBC 13y ago

> For example, any food marketed to children must “contain at least 50% by weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.” UK advice is to give children full fat milk until they are 2, and not skimmed until they are 5, and only then if they have a good diet. This is because of the fat soluble vitamins, and also because children need the energy. As part of a sensible diet full fat milk is fine. This advice is part of the healthy drinking stuff. Children should have water or full fat milk. If you give them fruit juice dilute it at least 10 parts water to 1 part juice. Use a free-flow beaker, or a straw cup, or a regular cup, rather than a sippy cup. All this advice from government sounds a bit preachy. But tooth removal is a significant cause for hospitalisation for UK children under 5. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/10/tooth-health-poverty-caries http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/10/tooth-health-p...) Tooth care (http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2366.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63 http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2366.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubC...) squash and fruit juice better than fizzy drinks? (http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/are-squash-and-pure-fruit-juice-better-for-children-than-fizzy-drinks.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63 http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/are-squash-and-pure-fruit-juice-...) Cups and beakers (http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/drinks-and-cups-children.aspx#close http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/drinks...)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- kibibu 13y ago
  Do you have any evidence of this? I would be shocked if food labeling laws let this happen without explicitly calling it some variant of "flavoured milk".
  - hkmurakami 13y ago
    hmm googled around but now I may be misremembering so I'll delete the parent post. Thanks for the correction!

guylhem 13y ago

The proposal mandating 50% of something in food marketed to kids is stupid nonsense. If anything, reason should tell you that evolution must have selected for a "resiliant" digestive system - so much that it's thriving on anything we throw at it. So why bother increasing the costs - besides for control and power? Do you have any reason to believe the experts know better what is good for one's health? Do they have large scale studies properly done? (I mean not on rats but on humans - it's kinda tough to force them to eat only what's prescribed during a study, and you can't follow them all day long for years) Do you want so much to reduce customer choice and force your thoughts on them? This is the polar opposite to freedom, and based on a flawed methodology. There are some evidence that a given regime or another may be beneficial for a given disease, but nothing convincing yet to the best of my knowledge when taking into account all the diseases (you don't get to hand pick the diseases you'll get). IMHO, the proper methodology would require a large scale datamining operation along with biological tests and proper outcome monitoring. We just don't have all the technology to do that yet on say at least 10 million humans for 10 years (and that wouldn't be large scale - there are 6 billions of us, and with a longer lifespan!). 10 millions over 6 billions would be a 0.0016 ie 0.16% sample - with such a small sample on only 1/7 of the human lifespan, I wish you good luck to anyone willing to take into account genetic polymorphism, intolerance to some food (milk, gluten) etc. It will just be an exercice in "manually correcting" so many things that the end result should not be trusted. Basically, at the moment we don't know for sure what's best, and we can't. To quote Djikstra, I'd say such laws and rules are just the root of all evil - premature optimization!!! EDIT: Downvotes as always. I find that downvoting for a disagreement is not fair play. You don't like my opinion? I would be delighted to be proved wrong, with facts please.

skylan_q 13y ago
Most researchers who publish studies are unfamiliar with the scientific method and hypothesis nullification. Either that, or it's not in the interests of the publishers to properly apply these concepts in their studies. We've gotten to a scary point where "science" is now getting more and more into the hands of the public and become a consumer good purely for consumption in the form of news. People love studies that confirm something they already believe. It's bad for business to dispel myths that people have an emotional investment in.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Interesting. Over the years, this is the third or fourth version of this same story that I've read. Read one on low carbs. Read one on low fat. Now this one. The assumption here, as it was in the others, is that we now know what works and what doesn't. And that forces beyond our control conspire to keep us fat. In this version, the thesis is that some form of certification system for marketing to children can cure the obesity epidemic. Beats me. But I'll bet twenty bucks that a decade or two from now we'll be reading the same type of article, only with different kinds of suggested cures. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions, which have changed drastically in the last 100 years. I doubt controlling marketing material will have a long-lasting effect, but anything is worth a shot. It is a very serious problem. Looking at the recent past, I'd be just a bit more humble about it.

dschobel 13y ago
"I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions, which have changed drastically in the last 100 years. I doubt controlling marketing material will have a long-lasting effect, but anything is worth a shot. It is a very serious problem." Which is it then, 'nothing wrong' or 'serious problem'?
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  Nothing structurally or behaviorally unusual. There has been no new change in the species or some external factor that has caused the obesity epidemic. It's all based on changing external conditions, mostly food availability. So there's no "disease" to cure, and no mastermind manipulation of the population by forces using [insert latest ideas here]. If anything, this leads me to believe that we'll need to take evolution into our own hands to fix this. Various measures like this could be a useful stopgap. Like I said, beats me. Happy to confess ignorance here (as opposed to seemingly most every other commenter who speaks on this topic) If pressed, however, also happy to provide more speculation. As an obese person, I can definitely add that the disease metaphor, like the "moral blemish" metaphor before it, in my opinion does more damage than good. People come up with these ideas, then start wrapping them in the conspiracy theory of the month garb. Enough with the evil corporations, corrupt governments, sick people, lazy no-goods. These highly emotionally-charged models of analysis are not helping the public conversation. For the entire history of the species nobody has had to worry about obesity until very recently. It follows that social structures and the physiology of humans are not the changing variable. The only obvious changing variable is food availability. So yes, obesity is a public health hazard, but it's not one based on some fault with people or social structures. It's simply the result of changing environmental conditions for which the species is ill-prepared.

CoryG89 13y ago

Is healthfully really a word..? I would have tried to phrase it 'eating healthily' off the top of my head.

Moto7451 13y ago
Yes, it's the adverb of healthful. Healthily is the adverb of healthy. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthful http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthful http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthy Kinda/sorta like the difference between affect and effect.
shellac 13y ago
'Healthfully' (as in healthful) or 'healthily' (as in healthy) are both fine according to the OED. Personally I've never heard of 'healthful'. Looking around Fowler's Modern English Usage suggests preference for 'healthful' is a U.S. thing (an even there it seems people are unaware of it, judging by the comments at a U.S. dictionary site). Fowler's also notes 'healthful' is considered 'old-fashioned and literary' or 'formal' by some teaching dictionaries.

throwaway1980 13y ago

This gallery was going around recently: http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs Apparently a journalist asked one family in each of 20 different countries to gather all of the food they bought in one week and take a picture. It's a fascinating look at global diets. The UK is even more disturbing than the US.

unreal37 13y ago
Mexico is interesting. A table full of fresh food, and... what looks like 12 2-liter bottles of Coke. On the USA table, there is literally nothing fresh. Every food is packaged, plus McDonalds, Burger King, 2 pizzas... Plus Diet Coke of course. And in Germany, again looks like a lot of healthy food there but then there's like 4 bottles of wine and 30 bottles of beer. Uh, that's a weeks worth of booze is it? And finally, with Chad. Three bags of something (rice I suppose) and a bottle of water. No fresh food, like the Americans. But compare the two pics side by side - wow.
- throwaway1980 13y ago
  Side note: it used to be that Mexican Coke contained cane sugar instead of HFCS. Not sure any more.
Kurtz79 13y ago
This must be quite old actually, I remember seeing it many years ago in a magazine. But it's very interesting anyway, thanks for the link!

volandovengo 13y ago

I just started the paleo diet and lost 10 lbs this last month. Overwhelmingly I've been amazed to see that most people seem to have no regard whatsoever for their nutrition. Things go into their body but it often has 0 nutricional value. Also - it's actually really really hard to eat well. Since so many restaurants cater to what people are familiar with, there's next to no alternative for people trying to eat nutritious food.

iamthebest 13y ago
> Also - it's actually really really hard to eat well. Not to mention it's expensive. I spend about $1200 a month just at Whole Foods, mostly on organic and raw foods. And that's just for myself.
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  You are paying for affiliation, not quality.
  - iamthebest 13y ago
    The thing is, I read "Super Immunity" by Joel Fuhrman and I've been obsessed with following his recommendation of eating greens, onions, mushrooms, beans, berries and seeds every day. Whole Foods is the only place around here where I can get all of these grown organically. Pesticides scare me. Especially since I can't be bothered to wash my food before eating it. But as I understand it, if you use pesticides, then the plants don't produce their own natural chemicals that fight off pests and other symbiotic organisms. I don't remember where I read it but according to my research those chemicals are very beneficial part of the total nutriment.
- zevyoura 13y ago
  That is a ridiculously large amount to be spending on groceries, even if you eat every meal at home. For comparison, I think I eat quite well and I spend well under $300/month (my goal is $50/week). A lot of this depends on your area, but I highly recommend checking out any ethnic[1] grocery stores in your area. The supermarket I shop at is, large, clean, and has comparable produce for 1/2 the price or less as the conventional supermarkets in the area. This is in Southern California, but I had a similar experience in Austin, TX and south-eastern Michigan, so I think it applies to most places in the US. Also, organic foods are nutritionally equivalent to conventionally grown foods according to the most recent research; you may want to reconsider your budgeting on that front. [1] I've been told this is not the politically correct term, but I'm not sure what the right one is; suggestions welcome! What I mean by this in reality is usually something like "Indian/Chinese/Mexican grocer."

whiddershins 13y ago

No one knows what food is healthy and what food isn't. Full stop. The more you read about this, the more you realize it is so. Government advice and regulation about healthy eating has likely been a contributing factor to a huge explosion in chronic disease. Enough is enough, improve and expand mandatory food labeling and stay out of the rest. Meanwhile, no one should market anything to kids, if you really think about it.

farinasa 13y ago
Maybe we don't know what exact combination of foods is most healthy, but there are things we do know. For instance, we know that carbohydrates consist of a ton of readily available energy. And if you eat more energy than you burn, you store the energy as fat. Bad? Maybe not, but it can easily get you to a bad state of health. We also know that there are vitamins and minerals in leafy greens that we really do need. Since they are easy to eat and also contain fiber, yet are low in energy, they are very healthy. My best advice is to pick up on these sorts of tidbits, not the latest diet/trend/fad.
- whiddershins 13y ago
  We don't know why people gain weight, and there are no known essential nutrients which cannot be acquired through eating cows. So what with all this talk about leafy grens? IMHO it is pseudoscience. (Although, I gotta admit, I feel a lot healthier when I EAT some leafy greens rather than when making a pedantic point)
  - farinasa 13y ago
    >We don't know why people gain weight We actually do. In simple terms, if you eat more than you can use, you will gain weight. It is slightly more complicated. I can explain more, but the web will do a better job than I can. The talk about leafy greens is that, we know they are low calorie, have essential vitamins and minerals, and provide fiber. Thus, they are definitely good for you. They don't harm you, they provide sustenance and other benefits and so your statement that we don't know what is healthy is just false.

jcampbell1 13y ago

I have a solution to the obesity epidemic, that would be realistic to implement. Right now the factors for what we analyse in nutrition is calories, macro nutrient content, and micronutrient content. What we really care about is satiation and satiety. These are words that no one talks about, and but get to the core of the issue. If I eat this food, how many calories will I consume before feeling full?(satiation). After eating this food, how long until I feel the need to eat again? (sateity). Unfortunately the research and measurements of these values is thin. We need to fix that. We already know things like whole milk better provides satiation and sateity than skim milk, and children that drink whole milk actaully have less obesity than skim milk drinkers. If we just measured and labeled foods with a sateity/satiation index (what we really care about), then people would actually have a chance to pick better foods. Right now it is damn near impossible to determine if eating eggs and bacon for breakfast is more likely to drive over eating vs cereal. It can be measured, but we just don't do it.

lifeformed 13y ago
That's an interesting idea. Is Satiation/sateity easily measurable? Is it proportionally consistent among everyone, or do some people get satiated more by some foods than others?
- ihsw 13y ago
  It depends on many factors, from the objective to the subjective. Objectively the measurements would vary according to the people, eg: obese vs not obese, old vs young, ethnicity, dietary history, and so forth. Subjectively it would vary according to cultural norms and personal opinions, for example. Additionally people can be accustomed to certain foods regardless of such measurements. There is some serious interest in diets like Ketogenic or Paleolithic, which espouse similar dietary requirements to what the parent suggested (eg: whole milk has significantly more fat than skim milk, as such they affect satiation and satiety differently from each-other).
- nijk 13y ago
  Satiety is on the label, written as fat/protein/fiber. Everything except carbs.

zobzu 13y ago

The best always end up being (IMO): - listen to your body - exercise some. doesn't have to be gym. even walking 30min a day is fine. - eat fresh food rather than frozen or processed food (hint: it requires cooking) - drink water, not soda or beer - Keep things balanced. Ying & yang principle applies basically everywhere. Including food types, salting, sweetening, etc. then you generally don't need to force diet upon you. you don't need medication. you don't need a "diet plan". you don't need to "hit the gym". you don't need to make extra efforts that you'll revert in 3month. you're also not going to get bulky or a skeleton. you're just going to get normal and healthy. of course, all the above take some effort. and its true that it's harder to find fresh food or proper food in general in the US than elsewhere, actually.

unreal37 13y ago
Contrary to what the exercise industry tells you in ads, you actually can't lose weight with exercise. Diet is almost always required to lose weight. Going to the gym for an hour, burning a measly 400 calories walking on a treadmill, and then celebrating that with a 800 calorie Smoothie after, is actually making people gain weight not lose.
- nandemo 13y ago
  > Contrary to what the exercise industry tells you in ads, you actually can't lose weight with exercise. Diet is almost always required to lose weight. You can certainly lose weight by doing exercise and keeping your caloric intake constant. It might as well be that out of all people who want to lose weight, only a small % of people have the discipline/volition to follow such a plan. But that's a far cry from "you can't lose weight with exercise".
  - unreal37 13y ago
    I stand by my original statement. Unless you are on The Biggest Loser and exercising 8 hours per day, burning 5,000 calories per day with exercise, you have to control what you eat to lose weight. It can't be done with "1 hour of exercise, 3 times per week" as the TV commercials claim. You called it "caloric intake constant", but that's counting calories, and sounds like a diet to me. And most people unconsciously eat more after a workout. They don't think they do, but they do. [1] http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-Exercise-Makes-You-Eat-More-22721812 http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-Exercise-Makes-You-Eat-More-2272...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

spikels 13y ago

I read Scientific American most of my childhood - articles about physics, biology, math and especially the Amateur Scientist column (I so wanted to make that laser but had no vacuum pump). I loved it! Then in the 1990s something changed instead of being about new discoveries it began to cover news and to advocate for various causes, even political positions. Then they dropped the Amateur Scientist column. Why couldn't they stick to science instead of snarky articles like this hectoring every American to eat better? Were they afraid of Omni, Popular Science or Time? Perhaps this was a good business decision but I have no regrets about canceling my subscription. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur_Scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur_Scientist

nixpulvis 13y ago

Was this sarcasm... Seriously.

malandrew 13y ago

Ironically, I doubt the industry would lose as much money as is claimed. Instead they would mostly likely just reorganize themselves about being profitable by selling healthy foods. The only problem I see is how long it would take for them to reorganize around healthy foods.

dschiptsov 13y ago

yeah, don't - you will ruin the whole economy!))

JacobJans 13y ago

This article points to the very obvious problem that it is very profitable to sell unhealthy foods in the US. There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is caused by the government. We subsidize the growing of industrial corn, soy, and wheat. These are the primary ingredients of junk food -- and junk food is significantly cheaper because of these subsidies. The subsidies provided for growing fruits and vegetables are extremely low compared to the subsidies for these big '3' ingredients. There are reason Coca Cola is made with corn syrup in the US, and real sugar in Mexico. The reason is farm subsidies, which make the cost of corn significantly cheaper, and thus make the cost of a can of Coke much less to produce. A very simple step to fixing the obesity issue is to change the farm subsidies. The artificial government role in the market should be modified to support the growth of healthy foods, instead of supporting the growth of corn and soy. Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen due to the political climate that has existed for a long time. However, in my dream world, here's what I would do: Gradually transition farm subsidies away from big industrial farms, to small local farms that produce a variety of crops. Over 10-15 years, all farms over a certain size would no longer be eligible for subsidies. Instead, small farms that produce and sell food to their local population would be eligible for subsidies. And they would get more for producing a diverse crop, and for certain organic practices. Ideally the cheap food would eventually be produced by tens of thousands of small farms that serve their local communities and are accountable to their local communities. Plus, a huge network of local farms would result in a very resilient food system -- one of the primary goals of food subsidies.

wildgift 13y ago
The other thing is weight. A bag of chips is 3 or 4 oz. A case of them is a few pounds. A similar sized box of vegetables is 15 or 20 pounds. The chips will last a few weeks. Vegetables will last a few days.
- JacobJans 13y ago
  You're absolutely right about weight. One of the big concerns of an industrial food system is shipping. The other big concern is shelf life. Neither of these are nearly as big of a concern if you get your food from a local farmer. The health of the consumer is not much of a concern, except in terms of marketing. Right now, it is more expensive to buy local food from a farmers market than it is to buy industrial produced shipped from thousands of miles away. This should change, and it should change by shifting subsidies away from large industrial farms to small local farms.

elangoc 13y ago

I've been thinking for a long while, now, about how to stitch together the many threads of thought around diet, nutrition, environment, and economics: 1) eating a plant-based diet is healthier (Mark Bittman), or at the very least, eating natural things (Michael Pollan) 2) eating meat costs more, and it threatens the environment (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/worried-about-climate-change-eat-less-meat http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/...), including in China (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html) 3) for that matter, others foods besides meat that come from animals (ex: dairy) have the same effect. Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance) 4) nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet (http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-healthily-o-1-per-day/ http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-healthily-...) Lentils play an important part as a quality, cheap source of protein. 5) there are ways to make good food affordable to the people who can least afford it (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-truck-serves-san-diegos-homeless-d/ http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-truck-s...) In fact, the idea (or 'business model') of making necessary things affordable to the people who can least afford it as been around for 50 years (http://infinitevisionaries.com/ http://infinitevisionaries.com/) 6) a very important factor to incentivize people to switch diets is knowing that the food will taste good. While it might involve a slight change in cultural diet, this is absolutely possible (http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dosa-man-of-new-york http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dos...) 7) the vegetarian diet of Tamils in Tamil Nadu (India) and Tamil Eelam (Ceylon) is wide & varied, largely dairy-free, and mostly gluten free. This largely applies for the other South India states, too. The diet consists in large parts of lentils, leafy greens, vegetables, and spices. 8) in particular, the diet in Tamil Nadu/Tamil Eelam of 50 years ago should be examined, which is before the Green Revolution occurred in India. Back then, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.). 9) An unintended consequence of the Green Revolution in India and China in the 1950's is that, at least in India, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.) were dropped in favor of the far less nutritional white rice, which was for many just a once-in-a-while treat. In North India, the favored, newly-proliferated crop of choice was wheat. (Both rice and wheat are dreadfully water-intensive.) Brown rice doesn't exist there, but in the region, only people in Kerala and Tamil Eelam eat a red rice that is similarly nutritious. Of course, this is said to be not as nutritious as things like finger millet or "thinai" (similar to quinoa). 10) People talk about the importance of vitamin B12, and that you can only get it from animal based sources. But this diet has been around for 4,500 years, people have been just fine. (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civilization_food_how_scientists_are_figuring_out_what_curry_was_like.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civili...) I'm sure people have been vegetarian for at least 2,000 years of that, if I judge based on the Thirukkural (2,000 year old literature of virtuous maxims, of which 10 talk about not eating meat). There are athletes and body-builders in America who are vegetarian and vegan. So I really think that a restaurant (or at the least, food truck) should pop up selling a variety of vegan Tamil food at a very low price. This would solve so many problems. I've been thinking of this for a long while now, but I would be just happy if someone 'steals' the idea and runs with it. (note: I'm sure there are other ways to achieve low cost, high nutrition, vegan diets in varied, tasty ways, but this is part of my birth tradition. You can treat that as a disclaimer / proof of authenticity. For me, personally, I'm fairly lactose-intolerant, and I'm wondering now that I might be gluten intolerant. I've been trying to be more vegan/vegetarian for the past 5 months, and it's helped a lot in my finances. It hasn't negatively impacted exercising. I'm hoping to see more change once I start cooking!...)

whiddershins 13y ago

I have a solution for the obesity epidemic which would be difficult to implement, but might actually work: Address the socioeconomic and political factors that create so much poverty in our country, and which also depress income in general. We evolved to eat meat. The ethics of this I won't touch but the economics are only a sticking point if you assume we must have a poverty-stricken underclass in our country. And by poverty stricken underclass I mean anyone who can't afford a couple of lbs of free range organic meat per day. Do the math. Because most of our pre-civilization ancestors ate like that all the time. Why can't we afford the same? And don't say overpopulation. Back of the envelope math says the US could easily produce meat at those levels for around 600 million people. And modern societies have negative population growth in the wealthy demographics. So isn't the problem just the ever increasing number of people who are being dragged in to poverty?

mung 13y ago

>If one company didn’t, their competitors would, so we all kind of have to do it. There is a point here lots of people, especially western countries, and most especially Americans miss. So many people think government regulation takes away freedom and unfettered capitalism gives it. People whose own interests aren't even represented by that idea. And we all suffer because of this.

kokey 13y ago

I don't think the food industry would be too worried about lost revenue. They will be more worried about the cost of having to create and replace whole new ranges of products to fit into these guidelines, but in the end they will deliver the same wide spectrum of foods as they do today and fit into the guidelines. Perhaps it will raise the prices of the products generally, which will help with overeating but will also make products falling outside of the guidelines more attractive. The irony is that in 10 years time our 'understanding' of what is healthy and what is not will probably have changed radically.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

So is it that we have to eat unhealthy at the gun point? No! We are free to eat whatever we want. And if most people want to eat poison then that's what the free market economy will provide them with. It reminds me a little bit the situation with the banks. Somehow when times were good and everybody and their uncle could get a loan everybody loved Goldman Sachs CEO. But now, when it is pay off time people just hate the banks. Just shows a hell lot about people's attitudes (me! me! me!) The same with the food industry. It's not my fault I eat like pig day and night, it's because the commercial on TV told me to do it. Sure, and if they told you to eat shit, you would eat shit, right? Socialism is the love of blaming somone for your own failures. Free people not only make decisions, but also take responsibility for them. People who don't, should live for some time in a country where 'Dear Leader' will decide for them how they should live their lives because there is no difference to them anyway. I'm tired of this BS. Used to have a coworker who was eating all the time. She had a small refrigerator in her cubicle. And of course, yeah, she wants universal healthcare. So I and others will pay for her bad choices. This is just immoral.

crusso 13y ago

So we're too stupid to pick out healthy food, but we're smart enough to vote in people who know what's best for us and are ethical enough to not abuse their power for self-enrichment? Let's also ignore the fact that most of the food industry's processed low-fat crap was a direct result of the government's earlier attempts to tell us that fat was evil and shove the food pyramid down our throats.