huge topic:Americans keep getting fatter

[NotCranky]

[quote=ocrenter]
the issue is too much food, regardless of the activities.

for example, brisk walking for 2 hours burn 200 calories. but if you get a single entree at a regular restaurant you are routinely looking at 1700 to 2000 calories, added to that drinks and appetizers and desert, you could be looking at 3000 calories. assuming that person would eat another 1000 calories for the other 2 meals of the day, that translate to 5000 calories. subtract 2000 calories for a typical male with average activities for a day, that’s 3000 calories over on that day. 3000/200 = 15 hours of brisk walking to burn up the excess calories. how many people walk 15 hours on a day that they decide to go out to Chili’s or TGIF or Claim Jumper?[/quote]

Simple solution, on a planned dinner out day to a restaurant where the food is heavy for breakfast have a glass of juice and a piece of high fiber toast, for lunch a hard boiled egg and apple. Drink plenty of water during the day to help deal with the lousy restaurant food. Order one of the healthier things on the menu or just eat half.(Any reasonable variations will do)
I don’t really consider that dieting. It is just applying common sense and decent care in the face of a questionable dinner.Most importantly, the remedy is before the fact not after. No guilt or panic or other negatives associated with dieting.

[jeeman]

I’m with OCRenter….your workouts will never catch up to your eating. Most people think, “i’ll just go to the gym more” and never change their eating.

Ever tried to help someone with what they eat? It produces just as much conflict as politics and religion.

[jeeman]

I’m with OCRenter….your workouts will never catch up to your eating. Most people think, “i’ll just go to the gym more” and never change their eating.

Ever tried to help someone with what they eat? It produces just as much conflict as politics and religion.

[jeeman]

I’m with OCRenter….your workouts will never catch up to your eating. Most people think, “i’ll just go to the gym more” and never change their eating.

Ever tried to help someone with what they eat? It produces just as much conflict as politics and religion.

[jeeman]

I’m with OCRenter….your workouts will never catch up to your eating. Most people think, “i’ll just go to the gym more” and never change their eating.

Ever tried to help someone with what they eat? It produces just as much conflict as politics and religion.

[jeeman]

I’m with OCRenter….your workouts will never catch up to your eating. Most people think, “i’ll just go to the gym more” and never change their eating.

Ever tried to help someone with what they eat? It produces just as much conflict as politics and religion.

[weberlin]

[quote=ocrenter]The obesity epidemic is the result of a perfect confluence of conditions in this country since the 60’s:

–families gradually moved from single income to double income or single parent households, translating to less in home cooking and more take outs/eating out or reliance on easy to cook processed food.

–expansion of suburbia, which also translate to increased reliance on cars and increased commute time. this eliminate walking as integral part of daily life.

–the increased reliance on restaurant food/processed microwave ready food means increased amount of dollar in that area. this drives competition for this expending dollar. the expending food industry realized if they maximize taste (increase in grease and salt), maximize portion size, and improve efficiency (thus lower cost), they can maximize their profit.

…[/quote]

Any conversation about the state of agriculture and food consumption practices in post-Vietnam U.S. needs to weigh the considerable influence of Earl Butz, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed by Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

Butz was successful in creating policies that created cheap food. I don’t think he foresaw the rise and domination of multi-national agri-corp behemoths like Monsanto, and Tyson as an additional consequence of his policies.

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.

[weberlin]

[quote=ocrenter]The obesity epidemic is the result of a perfect confluence of conditions in this country since the 60’s:

–families gradually moved from single income to double income or single parent households, translating to less in home cooking and more take outs/eating out or reliance on easy to cook processed food.

–expansion of suburbia, which also translate to increased reliance on cars and increased commute time. this eliminate walking as integral part of daily life.

–the increased reliance on restaurant food/processed microwave ready food means increased amount of dollar in that area. this drives competition for this expending dollar. the expending food industry realized if they maximize taste (increase in grease and salt), maximize portion size, and improve efficiency (thus lower cost), they can maximize their profit.

…[/quote]

Any conversation about the state of agriculture and food consumption practices in post-Vietnam U.S. needs to weigh the considerable influence of Earl Butz, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed by Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

Butz was successful in creating policies that created cheap food. I don’t think he foresaw the rise and domination of multi-national agri-corp behemoths like Monsanto, and Tyson as an additional consequence of his policies.

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.

[weberlin]

[quote=ocrenter]The obesity epidemic is the result of a perfect confluence of conditions in this country since the 60’s:

–families gradually moved from single income to double income or single parent households, translating to less in home cooking and more take outs/eating out or reliance on easy to cook processed food.

–expansion of suburbia, which also translate to increased reliance on cars and increased commute time. this eliminate walking as integral part of daily life.

–the increased reliance on restaurant food/processed microwave ready food means increased amount of dollar in that area. this drives competition for this expending dollar. the expending food industry realized if they maximize taste (increase in grease and salt), maximize portion size, and improve efficiency (thus lower cost), they can maximize their profit.

…[/quote]

Any conversation about the state of agriculture and food consumption practices in post-Vietnam U.S. needs to weigh the considerable influence of Earl Butz, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed by Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

Butz was successful in creating policies that created cheap food. I don’t think he foresaw the rise and domination of multi-national agri-corp behemoths like Monsanto, and Tyson as an additional consequence of his policies.

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.

[weberlin]

[quote=ocrenter]The obesity epidemic is the result of a perfect confluence of conditions in this country since the 60’s:

–families gradually moved from single income to double income or single parent households, translating to less in home cooking and more take outs/eating out or reliance on easy to cook processed food.

–expansion of suburbia, which also translate to increased reliance on cars and increased commute time. this eliminate walking as integral part of daily life.

–the increased reliance on restaurant food/processed microwave ready food means increased amount of dollar in that area. this drives competition for this expending dollar. the expending food industry realized if they maximize taste (increase in grease and salt), maximize portion size, and improve efficiency (thus lower cost), they can maximize their profit.

…[/quote]

Any conversation about the state of agriculture and food consumption practices in post-Vietnam U.S. needs to weigh the considerable influence of Earl Butz, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed by Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

Butz was successful in creating policies that created cheap food. I don’t think he foresaw the rise and domination of multi-national agri-corp behemoths like Monsanto, and Tyson as an additional consequence of his policies.

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.

[weberlin]

[quote=ocrenter]The obesity epidemic is the result of a perfect confluence of conditions in this country since the 60’s:

–families gradually moved from single income to double income or single parent households, translating to less in home cooking and more take outs/eating out or reliance on easy to cook processed food.

–expansion of suburbia, which also translate to increased reliance on cars and increased commute time. this eliminate walking as integral part of daily life.

–the increased reliance on restaurant food/processed microwave ready food means increased amount of dollar in that area. this drives competition for this expending dollar. the expending food industry realized if they maximize taste (increase in grease and salt), maximize portion size, and improve efficiency (thus lower cost), they can maximize their profit.

…[/quote]

Any conversation about the state of agriculture and food consumption practices in post-Vietnam U.S. needs to weigh the considerable influence of Earl Butz, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed by Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

Butz was successful in creating policies that created cheap food. I don’t think he foresaw the rise and domination of multi-national agri-corp behemoths like Monsanto, and Tyson as an additional consequence of his policies.

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.

[ocrenter]

[quote=weberlin]

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.[/quote]

so perhaps simply redirecting the subsidies toward production of healthier food?

[ocrenter]

[quote=weberlin]

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.[/quote]

so perhaps simply redirecting the subsidies toward production of healthier food?

[ocrenter]

[quote=weberlin]

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.[/quote]

so perhaps simply redirecting the subsidies toward production of healthier food?

[ocrenter]

[quote=weberlin]

Regardless of intent, Butz is the guy that set the ball rolling on large corporations pushing out small farmers to get ridiculous subsidies. These subsidies were initially priced to incentivize food production to lower the cost of food for families in the 60’s. Unfortunately, these subsidies have only increased since their initial adoption.[/quote]

so perhaps simply redirecting the subsidies toward production of healthier food?

[Author]

Posts