Our Food is Killing Us!

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

In a bad week we'll have two pre-packaged dinners. One is usually pizza and the other lasagna. And I'm a single parent, so healthy eating is do able. No food is quicker than an apple. Bananas are pretty close behind. Pre-cut fruits like cantaloupe and watermelon keep pretty good in the fridge. Cheaper than chips too.

What irks my chain in this debate is that it's the kids who are responsible, who care about their health, who understand the the concept of moderation are asked to pay the price. Food and food choices are not the problem, fat people are. But we seem afraid to address the problem. It's a pc cop-out and it has no place in our schools.

...
I live alone... and i know how hard it is to keep fresh fruits and vegetables around without having them rot (they should really call that drawer in your refridgerator the 'Rotter'... because just about everything that goes in there rots). I know that the shelf life of a peach is a couple of days... and forget about green lettuce salads. Still, I think it's the amount of food you eat... the number of times per day you eat.... and the amount of exercise you get on a daily basis.
But, it is partly the kids... the ones who'll eat the whole bag of Lays Potato chips while watching 4 hours of SpongeBob or 8 hours of Grand Theft Auto. It's partly the parent for allowing this to even exist, but it is also the kid's responsibility to avoid raiding the pantry and fridge for all of the snack foods. The kid can eat like that if he is out there running around and burning up the calories. Sitting on his ass in front of a screen is just going to make him fat.

Ms. Haiku

I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if this has been addressed, but it was briefly touched on earlier in the thread:

It's a catch 22 possibly for schools to not accept the money Coca Cola or other companies are willing to give them if they can not get the money from the members of the communities. I don't think it's an absolute, but it's definitely a question many school administrators must ponder. I don't want the vending machines in schools, but what other alternatives could I propose? Raise taxes? Does that go over very well for members of the community? In 1996 I was in a protest just to maintain the money allocated for the Seattle School system from one year to the next not to raise it. As people have to protest so that other members of the community vote to maintain the current spending on schools, I would think that many school administrators must look towards other sources of revenue to stay on top of expenses. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I guess the question is do schools accept money from Coca-Cola and other vending machine companies as a last resort mostly, or do they accept it as a first resort? It is a stealth maneuver/good marketing strategy to get in the schools. I hope if I have children that their schools don't have those machines, but at that time I would need to say "What am I willing to do to make sure they stay out."

The movie "Supersize This" touches on this question as does the newest book by Frances Lappe who wrote Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet.

Uncle Leo

surferdude wrote:

Easily counter-acted by physical activity.

That's not entirely true. I think I read somewhere that eating habits are like 4 times as important as excercise for weight (that said everyone should excercise 6.5 days a week).

I am my own anecdotal evidence. When I was 50 pounds overweight, my cardio used to blow people away. I was (and still am) in better shape than 95% of the people I came across. But I was still fat. It was about the eating.

I tend to agree that sugar is not quite as bad as fat, but calories are calories to an extent.

farfromglorified

Uncle Leo wrote:

Then perhaps schools should have smoking sections. In fact why should there even be an age to buy tobacco. Why should I tell a kid he can't have an occaisional smoke at school just becasue someone else smokes three packs a day?

I agree -- there shouldn't be any legal age to buy tobacco.

Regardless, smoking is much more harmful than a can of coke and a can of coke isn't going to get a kid addicted to the stuff. And there's certainly no such thing as second-hand coking.

surferdude

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The coke is infact harmful when overconsumed.

So let's address the over consumption. Let's address the problem. Let's get fat Julie and Fat Jim help and hold them and their parents accountable. Let's stop holding their healthy play buddy Johny accountable though. Johny having a coke once a week at school is not the problem, so let's not treat it like it is.

Abookamongstthemany

Uncle Leo wrote:

That's true. No getting around it.

All of the people in my parents situation say that they did not know how bad smoking was when the started (what a BS cop out). Well now we know. AND we have labeling. And the proportion of people that smoke is approximately the same today as it was in the 1980s and the 1960s.

But it is addictive and hard to stop once you start (oftens times out of bad decisions) Food is different. People don't go through withdrawls from fast food, do they? What can the labeling hurt? We don't know if if would make a difference or not yet.

rebornFixer

Uncle Leo wrote:

That's not entirely true. I think I read somewhere that eating habits are like 4 times as important as excercise for weight (that said everyone should excercise 6.5 days a week).

I am my own anecdotal evidence. When I was 50 pounds overweight, my cardio used to blow people away. I was (and still am) in better shape than 95% of the people I came across. But I was still fat. It was about the eating.

I tend to agree that sugar is not quite as bad as fat, but calories are calories to an extent.

I think there are individual differences, though ... For some people, diet is key. Others (like myself) can eat quite badly from time to time but easily work it off via exercise.
I also know several people who have not really changed their eating habits, but who have stopped driving everywhere. All the extra exercise has translated into fairly impressive weight loss.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

So let's address the over consumption. Let's address the problem. Let's get fat Julie and Fat Jim help and hold them and their parents accountable. Let's stop holding their healthy play buddy Johny accountable though. Johny having a coke once a week at school is not the problem, so let's not treat it like it is.

Johnny will manage without his prized, useless one coke a week and it could make a huge difference in the life of the ridiculed fat kid. He could find he even prefers the alternatives out there when added to his weigh loss and better health.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There are no labels on any junk food I've seen that warn of health risks.

So the nutritional contents are not enough? Now we have to warn people of the possible effects of those contents? Would you like to see a "May be hazardous to your health" label on junk food? Well, you better put that on nearly every piece of food sold in America since all food eaten in excess can be dangerous to your health.

Sorry, but if you can't figure out that "150% of your daily recommended intake of fat" during one meal is unhealthy, it's time to stop having faith in labels.

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

I think there are individual differences, though ... For some people, diet is key. Others (like myself) can eat quite badly from time to time but easily work it off via exercise.
I also know several people who have not really changed their eating habits, but who have stopped driving everywhere. All the extra exercise has translated into fairly impressive weight loss.

weight is not the only indication of health ... its about how one feels, how one can fight off illnesses, etc ...

either way - north americans are easy prey ... we lap up whatever corporations sell us and treat it as gospel ...

Cosmo

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The coke is not necessary and it is infact harmful when overconsumed.

...
I wonder... where do these kids get the money to buy this stuff? I know that the Coke machine here at work is a buck 25 for one... as a kid, I didn't get squat until I got a paper route. If a kid drinks 15 Cokes a day... that's 20 bucks a day in Cokes alone.
Where is this kid getting the money from?

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

I agree -- there shouldn't be any legal age to buy tobacco.

Regardless, smoking is much more harmful than a can of coke and a can of coke isn't going to get a kid addicted to the stuff. And there's certainly no such thing as second-hand coking.

Caffeine is addictive, or do you not believe that?

I'm a caffeine addict, but my method of delivery is coffee. Not that coke shit.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Johnny will manage without his prized, useless one coke a week and it could make a huge difference in the life of the ridiculed fat kid. He could find he even prefers the alternatives out there when added to his weigh loss and better health.

So in other words Johnny's choices are only available if they match your standard of "useful". It's nice that you consider that he might "prefer the alternatives". Let's hope he does since you've now turned the "alternative" into the only available choice. Ick.

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

Caffeine is addictive, or do you not believe that?

I do believe that.

I'm a caffeine addict, but my method of delivery is coffee. Not that coke shit.

I actually kicked the caffiene habit a few years ago. I was drinking about a pot of black coffee a day. I felt weird for a couple of days, but now I'm glad I did it.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

So the nutritional contents are not enough? Now we have to warn people of the possible effects of those contents? Would you like to see a "May be hazardous to your health" label on junk food? Well, you better put that on nearly every piece of food sold in America since all food eaten in excess can be dangerous to your health.

Maybe we should, it wouldn't hurt. But I'm speaking of the more dangerous types of over processed junk food with tons of chemicals and added ingredients.

farfromglorified wrote:

Sorry, but if you can't figure out that "150% of your daily recommended intake of fat" during one meal is unhealthy, it's time to stop having faith in labels.

Giving the educational system we currently have, it wouldn't be a bad idea to spell some things out more clearly.

PJfanFORlife

Ever see the sodium content on can soups and ravs and such. it is fucking outrageous!!! i wouldn't touch that shit if you paid me.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

So in other words Johnny's choices are only available if they match your standard of "useful". It's nice that you consider that he might "prefer the alternatives". Let's hope he does since you've now turned the "alternative" into the only available choice. Ick.

School isn't there for Johnny to have his pick of whatever crap he wants. Schools are for education, I'm sure he'll understand or he can bring his own.

Abookamongstthemany

Cosmo wrote:

...
I wonder... where do these kids get the money to buy this stuff? I know that the Coke machine here at work is a buck 25 for one... as a kid, I didn't get squat until I got a paper route. If a kid drinks 15 Cokes a day... that's 20 bucks a day in Cokes alone.
Where is this kid getting the money from?

Our lunches were like 20 mins. How do they have the time to chug this stuff so fast, as well? They must spend their whole lunch feeding dollars into the machine.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

School isn't there for Johnny to have his pick of whatever crap he wants. Schools are for education, I'm sure he'll understand or he can bring his own.

Cool. Bye-bye free lunches for the poor too.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Cool. Bye-bye free lunches for the poor too.

Why? Because coke is unhealthy and has no place in schools?