3 ms·

We're Fat and Sick and the Broccoli Did It

1 points by praptak 12y ago

dalke 12y ago
There's no evidence that broccoli is mentioned as anything other than link bait. This looks like one of a large number of interpersonal conflicts that appear in the discussion of what constitutes a good diet. I don't see anything of important note. The essay at LinkedIn derides an op-ed on the NYT. The LinkedIn author assumes that op-eds are supposed to be reliable, and that the 'New York Times would allocate its imprimatur and rarefied real estate to an infomercial masquerading as an Op-Ed' is 'a genuinely big, genuinely fat, and lamentably disappointing surprise'. This is a misunderstanding of the op-ed page, which frequently contains "informercials". These are considered opinion pieces, and not journalism, and definitely have contained outright lies. (A Google search finds many claims for lies. See http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117240/nicolas-maduros-new-york-times-op-ed-distorts-venezuelan-history http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117240/nicolas-maduros-ne... , http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_nyt_spread_the_big_lie_of.php?page=all http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_nyt_spread_the_big_lie_of.p... for two.) The reference to "broccoli" is apparently in reference to an unpublished exchange between the two authors ("The author in question ... engaged me recently in such an exchange to tell me: the broccoli did it!"). None of the links given refer to that exchange. The NYT article doesn't use the word "broccoli". The closest there is a lament about the increase in eating starchy vegetables. Broccoli is not a starchy vegetable. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-starchy_vegetables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-starchy_vegetables .) The LinkedIn essay also ends "The broccoli didn’t do it. We are fat and sick for rather obvious reasons. If we’ve had enough of that, it’s time to act accordingly, by getting sick and tired of business as usual."
barking 12y ago
you have to sign up to linkedin to read this article
- dalke 12y ago
  I read it fine from a private window in Firefox. I don't, however, think it's an interesting essay.
  - barking 12y ago
    Thanks, still didn't work for me in chrome incognito or firefox private, kept getting redirected to login sign up for linkedin. Maybe it's because i'm using a vpn?
mathgeek 12y ago
> True, we produce more vegetables than we did 45 years ago. But are we eating more produce? In absolute terms, probably a bit. But as a percent of calories? Not at all. I could be misunderstanding something here, but my gut tells me that "as a percent of calories" is not a metric to measure produce intake. You can eat as many heads of broccoli as you want, and that portion of steak is still going to be most of your calorie intake.

1 points by praptak 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

There's no evidence that broccoli is mentioned as anything other than link bait. This looks like one of a large number of interpersonal conflicts that appear in the discussion of what constitutes a good diet. I don't see anything of important note. The essay at LinkedIn derides an op-ed on the NYT. The LinkedIn author assumes that op-eds are supposed to be reliable, and that the 'New York Times would allocate its imprimatur and rarefied real estate to an infomercial masquerading as an Op-Ed' is 'a genuinely big, genuinely fat, and lamentably disappointing surprise'. This is a misunderstanding of the op-ed page, which frequently contains "informercials". These are considered opinion pieces, and not journalism, and definitely have contained outright lies. (A Google search finds many claims for lies. See http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117240/nicolas-maduros-new-york-times-op-ed-distorts-venezuelan-history http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117240/nicolas-maduros-ne... , http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_nyt_spread_the_big_lie_of.php?page=all http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_nyt_spread_the_big_lie_of.p... for two.) The reference to "broccoli" is apparently in reference to an unpublished exchange between the two authors ("The author in question ... engaged me recently in such an exchange to tell me: the broccoli did it!"). None of the links given refer to that exchange. The NYT article doesn't use the word "broccoli". The closest there is a lament about the increase in eating starchy vegetables. Broccoli is not a starchy vegetable. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-starchy_vegetables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-starchy_vegetables .) The LinkedIn essay also ends "The broccoli didn’t do it. We are fat and sick for rather obvious reasons. If we’ve had enough of that, it’s time to act accordingly, by getting sick and tired of business as usual."

barking 12y ago

you have to sign up to linkedin to read this article

dalke 12y ago
I read it fine from a private window in Firefox. I don't, however, think it's an interesting essay.
- barking 12y ago
  Thanks, still didn't work for me in chrome incognito or firefox private, kept getting redirected to login sign up for linkedin. Maybe it's because i'm using a vpn?

mathgeek 12y ago

> True, we produce more vegetables than we did 45 years ago. But are we eating more produce? In absolute terms, probably a bit. But as a percent of calories? Not at all. I could be misunderstanding something here, but my gut tells me that "as a percent of calories" is not a metric to measure produce intake. You can eat as many heads of broccoli as you want, and that portion of steak is still going to be most of your calorie intake.