|
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 |
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Again, you addressed only one of three choices that influence obesity. |
No, I am addressing everything simultaneously with one coherent unified theory.
Your error in logic is that the calorie consumption is independent of the types of foods which make up the bulk of the food supply. We know that's not true. And that calories drive metabolic syndrome. We know that's not true either. It's a muddled mess of anti-logic.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The food supply isn't somehow preventing these people from stopping the calorie intake at a certain point and/or burning off any excess through physical activity. |
It won't ever work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, it can work for individuals, but not a population?
Makes no sense for me. I firmly believe that if the population chose XYZ eating/health patterns, the market/supply would respond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Your error in logic is that the calorie consumption is independent of the types of foods which make up the bulk of the food supply. |
You have shown this to be no more than correlatively true. Just like that article that was linked earlier, that 90+% of people lack the drive to maintain a thinner lifestyle does not mean that those same people are prevented from doing so by outside forces.
| Quote: |
| And that calories drive metabolic syndrome. We know that's not true either. |
You either don't understand metabolic syndrome or you are intentionally trying to misrepresent it. One of the treatment recommendations - the first one, actually - links to this: "[F]ollow a healthy eating plan and keep your calorie needs in mind. Be physically active and try to limit the amount of time that you're inactive."
You are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| So, it can work for individuals, but not a population? |
Yep, there is no mathematical way the future situation can be different from current situation, given the aggregate food supply.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| I firmly believe that if the population chose XYZ eating/health patterns, the market/supply would respond. |
Yes, I know. Something like this requires massive infrastructure change, which requires govt working with industry. Which is exactly how the current food supply came to be. Govt can do it very efficiently as has been proved, the only problem -- the change wasn't for the better of health, it was for higher profits.
People clicking "like" on Facebook won't do it. But it is the dream people hold onto... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Your error in logic is that the calorie consumption is independent of the types of foods which make up the bulk of the food supply. |
...that 90+% of people lack the drive to maintain a thinner lifestyle does not mean that those same people are prevented from doing so by outside forces.
|
The forces which prevent the population from eating a smaller piece of the unhealthy pie chart are...
1) sugar is addictive
2) eating carbs does not decrease appetite, it increases appetite. The pie chart is 40% grains/sugar. Eating a smaller meal of 40% grains/sugar has not worked for the population. The masses keep chanting "but on paper it should work", because their model is based on the flawed theory of thermodynamics. The relevant fields are biochemistry and evolution/anthropology.
3) eating a food supply which is 60% empty of nutrients means you need to eat more, not less, in order to get your nutrients. If you require 100 units of nutrients and you are on a calorie deficit of 20%, and your food supply is 60% lacking in nutrients, then you are only getting 32% of your required nutrients. The population will AT BEST be a thin metabolic syndrome people.
The workout craze in the USA has not worked, for the above reasons. It has only resulted in skeletor soccer moms with low HDL, high TG, high blood sugar, heart attack, depression, attention deficit, etc...along side central-obesity soccer moms with the same problems.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| You are wrong. |
Consider for a moment that my analytical abilities are world-class, and I have done my work thoroughly (1000 hours in 2013). If you believe I have missed something in my analysis, think about the more likely option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| The forces which prevent the population from eating a smaller piece of the unhealthy pie chart are... |
1) choice
2) choice
3) choice - eat more, do more
Also... "If you want to speak about long-term health effects of the food supply, fine, but to say that fat people have no choice in being fat because of that food supply is simply wrong."
| Quote: |
| Consider for a moment that my analytical abilities are world-class [...] |
I have no interest in your ego. You are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smithington
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most fat people are fat by choice. It's that simple. If you are overweight you can change that reality. You can cut weight rapidly by adjusting your diet and exercising. If you do not do that you are fat by choice. You can choose to eat a salad instead of a triple bacon double cheese burger. If you choose the latter and then blame 'society' for your being fat then you are little better than a child.
Take responsibility for your dietary choices. After all, the person next to you who chose the chicken salad did. Why can't you? Does she have extra-super societal pressure resisting powers that you don't posssess?
You are fat because of YOU and the choices made by YOU! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
| However, the French Paradox is about the observation that French people have a relatively low incidence of coronary heart disease, not about them being less obese. |
You're either just nit-picking for the sake of it or you're saying there isn"t a connection between obesity and heart disease. Do you want to initiate a discussion about that? Either way the French are a lot less obese than the English, as well as having lower levels of heart disease. As shown here for example.
|
Well, I did not think that I was nitpicking, and yes, I do know there is a connection between obesity and heart disease. But there is also a connection between smoking and heart disease. My point was, the paradox is not wondering why the French are not as obese, it was wondering why they don't have as much heart disease. Sorry if that sounds like a nitpick.
Anyway, I have been trying to exit this thread. I don't think I have said anything controversial - just that the whole matter is more complicated than a lot of people seem to think. Yes, individuals can choose - as adults. But how about kids who really have no choice and have to eat the crap that is provided to them by their parents? The nutritional patterns that are set during those formative years can impact them for the rest of their lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, I did not think that I was nitpicking, and yes, I do know there is a connection between obesity and heart disease. But there is also a connection between smoking and heart disease. |
Yes I do know heart disease has other causes and yes I do know that Wikipedia article was mainly about heart disease. The topic of the thread was obesity and I was trying to show evidence that the French diet does not seem to cause as much obesity as exists in other countries, despite being calorific. I couldn't find an article that just concentrated on obesity while not mentioning heart disease, so I posted the Wikipedia one as second best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: Fat people may be classified as 'disabled' in the EU |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
And what you don't seem to be getting here... is that the aggregate food supply is made up of a variety of foods and people do have choices and plenty of them. It's not like McDonalds is the only choice out there.
|
It always amazes me people can't do basic math.
USA Food Supply by calories
Grains 26%
Sugar 17%
Processed Oil 21%
= 64% metabolic syndrome foods.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodSupply/Final_FoodSupplyReport_2006.pdf
100% of the people cannot survive on 36% of the available calories. There are choices for individuals, there is not a choice for the population. The population must eat the aggregate food supply.
What has happened in the USA is the only thing that could possibly happen, and it will continue until the food supply is changed. Use your brain. |
Nice.
As you should know as an "analyst"... is that anyone can throw out some stats, and still not have much of a clue. This is not just about basic math, and the fact that you seem to think so means you aren't really using your brain.
You can claim aggregate food supply is one potential FACTOR in obesity, but that's about it. And you could even say that it would tend to increase obesity on average...
But to say people, even as a population, have "no choice" but to be obese with that food supply, is simply wrong. I can see a fat, lazy person trying to rely on that argument to justify their weight, but it still won't fly.
-People CHOOSE FROM the aggregate food supply but don't have to mirror that exact calorie percentage breakdown.
-Even IF they had no other choice than those percentages, they still have a choice in how much they eat. (In the US, they typically OVERconsume ... by choice or habit).
-Lifestyle and exercise are huge factors as well. One can easily eat the typical American diet and NOT be obese, if they simply increase activity by even a small percentage.
- Most countries also have diets with a high percentage of grains/carbs (including Korea), with plenty of sugar and fat on offer too, yet they don't suffer the same obesity rates. Surely there's more to it than simply food supply.
So no, America doesn't "have to" be fat, even with the current aggregate food supply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
So, it can work for individuals, but not a population?
Makes no sense for me. I firmly believe that if the population chose XYZ eating/health patterns, the market/supply would respond. |
Exactly. But even if the market never adequately responded to consumer choice, people would still be able to make some basic choices about their lifestyles and food habits, as individuals... or as a general population.
It's not like all there is is Fruit Loops, and the government holds a gun to everyone's head and makes them eat a pound of it and them straps them in chairs so they can't exercise.
"We want you all fat, so we can give you disability payments, because there aren't enough jobs for you anyway."
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Fat people may be classified as 'disabled' in the EU |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| As you should know as an "analyst"... is that anyone can throw out some stats... |
My stats are not "some stats", they are the correct ones to be using.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| People CHOOSE FROM the aggregate food supply but don't have to mirror that exact calorie percentage breakdown. |
Individuals yes, population no. Basic math skills required.
| Mix1 wrote: |
-Even IF they had no other choice than those percentages, they still have a choice in how much they eat. (In the US, they typically OVERconsume ... by choice or habit).
-Lifestyle and exercise are huge factors as well. One can easily eat the typical American diet and NOT be obese, if they simply increase activity by even a small percentage. |
These are beliefs.
I already know people have inaccurate beliefs, what I'm providing is the accurate way to view the problem.
| Mix1 wrote: |
| So no, America doesn't "have to" be fat, even with the current aggregate food supply. |
A review of history tells us this is not the way things work.
In the 1930s Weston Price made some observations, and the same pattern he observed has continues for the last 70 years. Every society that has switched from their ancestral foods to industrial revolution foods, has become unhealthy (obesity being one metric). There has NEVER been another outcome observed. To act like "it will be different this time" is nonsensical. It was not different for the USA, people got sick, and fat. The experiment was conducted yet again, and the results were seen yet again...
When the food supply changes, the population's health changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| As you should know as an "analyst"... is that anyone can throw out some stats... |
My stats are not "some stats", they are the correct ones to be using.
|
They are simply some stats that relate to the topic, but they don't automatically prove the point you are trying to make, so you can stop already with the "you can't do basic math" line. Thanks.
If you could show that aggregate food supply automatically overrides all other factors for obesity, then that would make your stats more meaningful, but even then it wouldn't be an open and shut case.
You have added your own belief and opinion along with the stats, namely that people (or the population) have NO choice and MUST automatically become obese given the makeup of the aggregate food supply. That's an opinion, not the math-based law you are trying to make it out to be.
Let's take a population of active people, and give them a similar aggregate food supply. Will they automatically become more obese or even less healthy? That's an open question. Aggregate food supply is one variable, but certainly not the only one.
| Quote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| People CHOOSE FROM the aggregate food supply but don't have to mirror that exact calorie percentage breakdown. |
Individuals yes, population no. Basic math skills required.
|
A restaurant could offer a shite menu and the population of customers could still make their own choices accordingly from the available menu. Whether they would or not is a different matter... but they still have choices.
A population is made of individuals, and those individual choices will average out, but those choices do not automatically mean the average has to exactly mirror the aggregate food supply percentages, especially in a society with more than enough food, that overeats and lets plenty of the food supply go to waste anyway. While I agree they would "tend" be be fatter, it's still not like all choice or other lifestyle factors are automatically gone from the equation, even amongst the population as a whole.
| Quote: |
These are beliefs.
I already know people have inaccurate beliefs, what I'm providing is the accurate way to view the problem.
|
No, that's what I'M doing... while responding to your beliefs. lol
| Quote: |
In the 1930s Weston Price made some observations, and the same pattern he observed has continues for the last 70 years. Every society that has switched from their ancestral foods to industrial revolution foods, has become unhealthy (obesity being one metric). There has NEVER been another outcome observed. To act like "it will be different this time" is nonsensical. It was not different for the USA, people got sick, and fat. The experiment was conducted yet again, and the results were seen yet again...
When the food supply changes, the population's health changes. |
Sure, but that's different than saying there is NO choice but to be obese based on aggregate food supply, which is the point you tried to make. If that's so true then why is the US so fat compared to other countries who also eat high percentages of grains/ carbs, sugar, fats? Because aggregate food supply isn't the only factor, and maybe not even the main factor. For one thing, Americans eat way MORE of the food on offer and often exercise less than many societies.
As for Weston Price's observations/ beliefs, meh... ancestral foods are overrated.  Ok, I'm kidding, but a lot of it was scrounging around for whatever could be found but not always the ideal nutritional ratios. Look at modern Koreans : taller and healthier than when they ate their ancestral diet.... for the moment anyway. They eat a ton of carbs and sugars too, but aren't half as fat as Americans. Obviously plenty of variables at work here.
Yawn, anyway.... off for some barbecued fat (samgyupsal), white rice, and sugar-laden raspberry wine (pokbunja). Based on that meal, I guess I'll have NO CHOICE but to gain weight. We'll see what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again, here is my simple observation...
"the population eats the aggregate food supply, and therefore MUST be unhealthy and fat, since the foods which make up the food supply cause that, therefore their ill health can not possibly be called personal responsibility"
I've been saying this for years, and nobody has ever got it, until now...
Apparently there is a movie "Fed Up" (2014) which attempts to get communicate this simple theory. Think of it this way, Obama says to the population "eat My Plate", but it does not mirror the available food supply, therefore impossible for the population to eat that way.
If the government wants them to eat that way, simply change the food supply. After all, it is the food supply, not the food demand. The changes to the food supply that caused this problem were govt launched in the 1970s, they were never demanded.
Thrilled that a few smart people are starting to get it, skeptical that the masses will get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Again, here is my simple observation...
"the population eats the aggregate food supply, and therefore MUST be unhealthy and fat, since the foods which make up the food supply cause that, therefore their ill health can not possibly be called personal responsibility"
I've been saying this for years, and nobody has ever got it, until now...
Apparently there is a movie "Fed Up" (2014) which attempts to get communicate this simple theory. Think of it this way, Obama says to the population "eat My Plate", but it does not mirror the available food supply, therefore impossible for the population to eat that way.
If the government wants them to eat that way, simply change the food supply. After all, it is the food supply, not the food demand. The changes to the food supply that caused this problem were govt launched in the 1970s, they were never demanded.
Thrilled that a few smart people are starting to get it, skeptical that the masses will get it. |
The one's that "get it" are the ones already making healthy choices. Millions of them. But the whole "no choice" line of argument is still a cop out on personal responsibility and bad food/lifestyle choices. Nobody is saying the food supply has no effect, but certainly saying "no choice" and "must be" in terms of being obese is an exaggeration. That's pretty simple to get, I'd think.
One thing that would probably work wonders is if they started putting limits on corn syrup in food (won't happen soon), but only if people limit their own carb intake, which is very doable no matter what the aggregate food supply is, unless of course it suddenly became all carbs, which it won't. Americans are fat for a number of reasons (portion size, driving everywhere, snacks, no exercise, low standards of appearance, etc.). |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
