|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unnecessarily killing about ten billion animals a year (mostly chickens) as the U.S. does - spending over a billion annually on advertising meat products - will do the trick.
All the foods that humans need to be healthy - grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, milk products - can be obtained with practically no violence (and more economically and ecologically than raising animals for slaughter...)
It is not hard to figure out why the fast food industry has such a strangle hold on the stomachs of America when one looks at the money spent by the industry in advertising. Below is a list of the money spent on direct media advertising by some of the major fast food corporations:
McDonald�s 627.2 million dollars
Burger King 403.6 million dollars
Taco Bell 206.5 million dollars
Coke & Diet Coke 174.4 million dollars
Wrigley�s Gum 117 million dollars
M&M Candies 80 million dollars6
Seventy percent of food advertising is for convenience food, candy, snacks, soft drinks and desserts. Only 2.2% is spent on advertising for fruits and vegetables, grains or beans.7
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2002/5/02.05.07.x.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Personally I think obesity is down to lifestyle, not DNA. To me its a sin to be grossly overweight. An abuse of the body. |
Agreed.
To attribute everything in life to DNA ( something media seem to be working hard at doing these days )
is a total "COP" out.
IF only gluttonous people would show a little more restraint, healthy eating habits, exercise etc.
Junk Science indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again Plig hits the nail on the head:
We are living a more sedentary existence. My great grandfather, a farmer, ate like a horse but burned it off in the fields. He was never overweight and only cut back a little on helpings after retiring and lived to be 94.
It's the video culture, bruddah.
Junior yapped:
| Quote: |
| True, however there is only a finite amount of resources on the earth per person and per nation. The distribution is all out of whack. Americans (And much of the first world0 devour and waste far more than they actually need. Thats wrong |
Do you ever reflect before you post? In China, for instance, it is now common for people to order more food than they can consume, especially at banquets to show that they have enough money to waste food. And I've seen Koreans do the same thing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Location: the eye
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, Junior:
First, let me say your username is appropo. Second, the last time I checked China wasn't considered "a first world" country. Third, I think I implied disdain when I talked about using our fat people as a secret weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
First let me say McGarette that you are dead wrong.... It is not about our "sedentary" culture. In fact, studies have shown that the modern person does indeed burn comparable calories to anyone of ages ago........ you are totally off base and scientifically in the dog house. I won't pull the old, "authoritarian" position , nor quote credentials but I will shout you down.
Fact is, despite how I don't agree much with anything Rteacher writes, he/she has hit the nail on the head here....abundance. Calorie laden foods, too much calorie intake. That is the issue, not activity. I will state again, it is all about how many calories you take in. As you get fit, you must take in LESS calories to remain at the same weight. Unfit people do burn more calories and need more calories but NOT ANYTHING like they consume, thus they balloon. The issue is calorie intake.
Many studies show repeatedly that exercise, activity, is a great way to maintain current physiological stasis but not a way to lose any weight. The way to lose weight is through caloric restriction and the way to gain weight is through caloric intake.......America has too much corn starch based food intake, too much meat in its diet and too much on its plate
IT IS NOT ABOUT BEING SEDENTARY...though to be healthy in the full sense, one shouldn't be sedentary. So many benefits from this...... But this is another issue and not what keeps people fat......
I recommend Martin Collis' speakwell site for a lot of great articles and background on the obesity issue.
Here is the last issue .... http://www.speakwell.com/well/2006autumn/index.php
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
madcap

Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No question we kill more animals than we actually need to and Americans eat eay too much meat in their daily diet (hell, I'm as guilty of that as the next person), but to suggest that the killing of animals for food purposes is not only unnecessary, but immoral is way off the mark. Human beings are omnivores, we need a certain amount of protein and vitamins/minerals that are present in meat to be healthy. Granted, you can take supliments to compensate and if you are a vegetarien, more power to you, but lets get real here. We are animals, just like anything else on the planet and to say that we can't/shouldn't eat meat just because we have a conscience is just asinine. I don't want to rely on pills to keep me as fit as I should be. Did you ever wonder why the healthiest food for cats and dogs has lamb or poultry as one of the first ingredients? Maybe we should start giving them pita and hummus. Would it make a difference to you if we had to hunt for our food? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
DD:
Dodo, it's the combination of exercise and calorie restriction that brings on sustainable weight loss. Once again you're talking out of your azz.
And if you really believe Americans today are more active in their daily lives than our forebears I've got some oceanfront property in Utah to sell you.
Now run along and find the rest of your marbles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Location: Tokyo
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| The reason why people in general are getting fat is because they are eating the same amount now as people did back when they worked their asses off every day laboring at difficult, back-breaking jobs. The eating culture survived, but the hard-working culture didn't. |
Pretty much bang on...also car ownership becoming common and not a luxary is a huge (no pun intended) factor.
Another reason is people are more busy these days so fast food takes priority over homecooking. From what I've seen in Korea child obesity is becoming a problem I guess due to the parents working long hours therefore dialling for pizza and fried chicken most nights.
The Chinese point is a good one, they have a very poor diet and once they get off their bikes and into cars you will be seeing a lot of chubby chinamen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mcgarette,
| Quote: |
| And if you really believe Americans today are more active in their daily lives than our forebears I've got some oceanfront property in Utah to sell you. |
This only shows that you follow whatever slogan and easy thought wave passes through your cone head.....please note I never said more active. I talked of energy expenditure. We have far longer days than those of even 200 years ago and we go , go , go. Looking at calorie usage, we extend our days and use up comparably the same amounts. And in either case, these calories are insignificant to the increased caloric intake.
The problem is not a quick fix -- as a 20/20 show just had someone on trying to suggest. It is simply about eating less, eating less calorie laden foods.
The issue of exercise is another thing. IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU LOSE WEIGHT in either the medium or long term (which is the only thing that counts). Fitness =s better use of energy . So please tell me banana breath, how that equals weight loss????? Exercise though, is great for regulating the metabolism, for fighting diabetes, heart disease and most importantly, for overall mental health. A think the medical establishment is just getting hip to....a win win situation.
You are talking out your arse. I ran and started my own children's foundation dedicated to this issue and did get informed on the issues before speaking to many people, east and west coast. If i were in my office back home, I'd whip you off some data but it ain't worth my time....
I won't even add anything about you getting informed....yada yada.... of course we all know , you are a "know it all".
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
newton kabiddles
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Fact is, despite how I don't agree much with anything Rteacher writes, he/she has hit the nail on the head here....abundance. Calorie laden foods, too much calorie intake. That is the issue, not activity. I will state again, it is all about how many calories you take in. As you get fit, you must take in LESS calories to remain at the same weight. Unfit people do burn more calories and need more calories but NOT ANYTHING like they consume, thus they balloon. The issue is calorie intake. |
maybe, maybe not...
"An interesting finding in the Framingham study was that those who ate the most saturated fat, the most calories and the most cholesterol were the most physically active.5 They also weighed the least and had the lowest levels of serum cholesterol!"
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
maybe, maybe not...
"An interesting finding in the Framingham study was that those who ate the most saturated fat, the most calories and the most cholesterol were the most physically active.5 They also weighed the least and had the lowest levels of serum cholesterol!" |
It isn't so simple and one good thing about the Framingham study, is revealing that it isn't so.... There are hundreds of associated risk factors, all working together and that along with the uniqueness of each of us, really hinders firm conclusions.
The same study recently found....
| Quote: |
| Framingham Heart Study based report published in New England Journal of Medicine strongly linking excess body / obesity with an increased risk of heart failure. Study shows BMI (Body Weight / Mass) index to be an independent risk factor. |
But I do agree with their conclusions regarding cholesterol and that it isn't just a question of eating less cholesterol laden foods (to achieve "health").
But at the end of the day, I believe in the simplest approach to things (and why I love running, so simple it is). Simplest conclusion is that we eat too much, way too much. Calorie restricted diets lead to the greatest health and longetivity no matter what other variables you throw in..........
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|