There is a war going on.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-LOVE...X/187693159481

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4837278821

That's the problem, not the fact that it's an option presented to them. As soon as a person makes an informed decision there is no reason to place blame on anyone else.

It's the fixable problem. The food industry is not fixable.

I'd like to do a study of two small towns - one with only a few small grocery stores and normal mom and pop restaurants. The other one is full of chain restaurants and giant grocery stores.

Which town would be fatter?

Good luck finding small towns without access to giant groceries and chain restaurants. They're everywhere now, even where I grew up in BFE West Virginia, with a population of a thousand.

Although I can also tell you from my experience before the chains arrived that people in rural areas are just as capable of growing morbidly obese eating home cooked food.

People for sure. But how many people? And how many kids?

ROFL I'm from a town of 200 that had one Cafe, there were still plenty of fat people including myself.

Edit: I do agree with you that with more bad options you'll have more people that choose that option, but my whole point is if that person is educated on what and how much they are eating is it still the fault of the place serving it?

Pretty much everybody was fat where I grew up, kids included (although I actually wasn't) and this was 30 years ago, long before Wal-Mart and Applebee's arrived. Tons of butter and cooking everything in lard will do that. Not to mention soda and kool-ade for the kids and beer for the adults.

No McDonalds?

I'm not arguing that its anyone's fault but their own, I'm just exploring the reason why America is fat.

I think it has more to do with industry than individual.

Not back then, no. They have them now.

Unless the industry is tying people to chairs and shoving food down their gullets, the problem is on the individual level.

I should say "became" instead of "is."

Advanced technology + laziness + more time consuming lives + less stay at home moms + more stress + plenty of other factors = fat

The food plays a part in it, but it's not the reason.

While these factors certainly contribute, I think the biggest issue is that Americans have more disposable income than anywhere else in the world. Historically, weight has been tied to wealth and I think it is the same today.

I'd tend to agree with this as well. Even the poorest of people here are out buying McDonalds dollar menu instead of working their asses off growing their own food to feed their family.

That's what I'm wondering.

I sure wish I had disposable income to buy my healthier foods.

What expensive foods are you buying?

more whole grain products, fruits and vegetables.

I'm more or less arguing that it is more expensive to eat healthy than to eat crappy. I've seen the difference in my wallet.

More "Hope and Change!" Thanks Barry.....

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA280_.jpg

looks like you have a bad link as well.

I hope the gubmnet outlaws double bacon mushroom cheeseburgers cause when they do I'm going to start selling them in back alleys for $100 a hit.

I think you can eat a healthy and inexpensive diet but it's more trouble than an inexpensive and unhealthy diet.

I'm trying to figure it out still but our bill has definitely gone up with the change to my eating habits. Mine isn't a diet though. It is a lifestyle change. More exercise and eliminating the junk.

Yes, all the "specialty" stores gouge you on price. Whole Foods, etc... have a great racket going, and the so-called organics are ridiculous. Even the chain supermarkets are charging you $5 bucks for a pound of salad.

$5 bucks for a pound of salad, or less than $5 for a couple of dollar menu items, some fries and a Coke.....

Even something as basic as a cucumber has become relatively expensive.

If some people in this thread are placing 100% of the blame on the food industry (and advertising), then why bang the drum saying the gov't needs to help (or punish, depending on your point of view) the people consuming those products? Shouldn't the "help" go towards limiting the food industry that is causing it all.

Ya know, stop the cause rather than treat the symptom?

OMG, whole foods was outrageous. I went there once, got HALF the stuff I usually do for a week's worth of the typical breakfast/snack/lunch/snack, and it cost me over TWICE as much as usual. And none of it was organic.

This "new" Government we have now can SUCK A BIG PENIS!!!!!!

A lot of your healthy foods tend to be seasonal, so the supply is low. When supply is low, but the demand is there, guess what happens.

He is "special" that's for sure. The idiots that worship him are just as bad.

People who eat food are gonna need a bailout!

Losing weight is so much easier when being able to buy food is not an option.

[QUOTE=Just Passin' By;6884470]Yes, all the "specialty" stores gouge you on price. Whole Foods, etc... have a great racket going, and the so-called organics are ridiculous. Even the chain supermarkets are charging you $5 bucks for a pound of salad.

$5 bucks for a pound of salad, or less than $5 for a couple of dollar menu items, some fries and a Coke.....

Even something as basic as a cucumber has become relatively expensive.[/QUOTE



Still though, most fresh produce is pretty cheap and goes a long way. Especially this time of year. When it's the best it's also the cheapest.

But for someone on a tight budget macaroni & cheese, hamburger helper and ramen noodles really help stretch the dollar and leave the bellies full. It's not coincidence that poor people are so often overweight. Low income Hispanic and NA folks down here eat a lot of rice, beans and tortillas - no wonder the high incidence of diabetes.

Those people are few and far between. Again, I'm not arguing that it's perfect. I'm simply saying it's not nearly as wildly off as most people believe.

That's crazy. Perhaps there are some other ways you can save money. Buy cheaper cuts of meat. I went from buying $8 "tastier" cuts of sirloin to leaner cuts of top sirloin that only cost $6 for 16 oz. of steak. That's a lot of meat. You can get lean cuts of pork loin 16 oz. for $4. That's a lot of meat, again. For fruits and veggies, frozen is just as good as fresh, and cheaper.

5'9" 205lbs makes one obese, per BMI, as does 6'0" 222 lbs and 6'3" 241 lbs.


It's wildly off for a whole lot of people. It really only has value for people of "average" build.

Frozen vegetables are NOT just as good as fresh. Not even close.

Hell IIRC Micheal Jordan on the 90's was technically obese according to that archaic BMI system.

Show me someone who's naturally 5'9", 205 and doesn't have fat to lose. That person is in an EXTREME minority, as is a natural 6'3", 241 without fat to lose.

EDIT: Just looking up some NFL guys, and there's hardly anyone that even comes close to those numbers. We have Steve Smith at 5'9", 185. BMI is "overweight." However, we've already established that the BMI isn't good for professional athletes. Show me someone in the gym that's even close to as big as Steve Smith with as low a body fat percentage, and again, we're talking EXTREME minority. As for 6'3", there are plenty of guys that tall in the skill positions, and hardly any of them come in anywhere close to 241. Linemen yes, but then, many linemen ARE carrying around a significant amount of fat (which isn't to say that they aren't in phenomenal shape, because they absolutely are). So on that end of the spectrum, too, it's an extreme minority. Like I said -- BMI is pretty inaccurate for NFL guys, but even then, most of them only come in in the "overweight" category, and not the "obese" category. They are super rare physical specimens that may or may not have obtained their size naturally. Super-rare, not a good fit for BMI. But most people aren't super-rare, as much as they like to think they are. Therefore, the BMI is generally a good INDICATOR, although it is hardly definitive of anything.

Average build is average for a reason. It fits the vast majority of people. Again, BMI isn't perfect and I'm not claiming it is.

Nutritionally, they're exactly the same. Taste, well, that's different. Some of that depends on how you thaw it, but you can make most anything from frozen vegetables.

But if you're trying to eat well on a budget, there's no reason NOT to buy frozen vegetables.

Huh? No, he was on the high end of normal.

That isn't what was reported back when I used to read up on it. He was always one of the examples on how BMI is very inaccurate. I probably misstated him being obese. Probable fell in the overweight category now that I think about it.

The BMI calculations need adjustments though.

EDIT

This isn't the same sources I read it from but it is an example of the stuff I did read.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=79655

"Take for example, basketball player Michael Jordan: ''When he was in his prime, his BMI was 27-29, classifying him as overweight, yet his waist size was less than 30,'' says Michael Roizen, MD. "

5-9 205 is definitely overweight.

I was 5-11 205 with plenty of muscle and I wanted to lose weight...so I did....

Except, when you plug in his stats, 6'6", 215 lbs, you get 24.84, which is on the extremely high end of normal. BTW, his college weight was 195, which is DEFINITELY in the normal range.

Not trying to argue with you on it. Just stating what was reported at the time.

I know. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think the whole "BMI is inaccurate" thing is WAY overblown. I mean, what the M.D. said in the article is COMPLETELY false, as a simple plug-in of the numbers shows.

There's millions of people in this country that manage not to be obese, so that pretty much shows you're not some sort of slave to the food industry and need government intervention.

I don't disagree with the overweight category, but the obese category seems awfully unforgiving. I am 6'2" and 230lbs and that is high end overweight and nearly obese on the BMI formula. Looking at me you would never expect that though.

I'm currently working to get my weight down but I find their definition of my situation as being nearly obese to be a little over the top.

I just think they need to take more in to account than just height and weight.

I think that part of our problem is a sort of a desensitization of just how large people are. When we think of "obese," we think of really huge people. But those people are SO large, that they've skewed what we think of as "obese."

I like this guy's chart better. I think it has a much more forgiving range, especially for those that tend to carry around a slightly higher than average amount of muscle.

http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/medical.htm

That chart makes a hell of a lot more sense.

I was 5'9" and playing college sports at 235. Zach Thomas was 5'11" and 242 (even when listed at 228, he's over the obesity threshold). LdT is listed at 5'10" 221lbs. Feel free to take a look at the linebackers at the combines for more easy examples. It's not just football, either. Tyson was "obese" at 5'11.5" 218, and Razor Ruddock was "overweight at 6'3" 224 when they fought. Kendrick Perkins is 6'10" 280 (overweight at 29.3 BMI). Dwight Howard is 6'9.5" 265, making him overweight with a 28 BMI. Rodney Harrison was just short of obese (29.0 BMI) at 6'1" 220. To call it an extreme minority is just not accurate. Cam Neely played at 6'1" 218 (overweight 28.8 BMI). Albert Pujols runs about 6'3" 230 (28.7). Here's a link to the linebackers at the 2008 combine:

http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/...inebackers.htm

Also, the issue isn't "fat to lose". Anyone who's not anorexic has "fat to lose".

Your "therefore" is simply not accurate, it's really that simple. I just gave a bunch of easy examples to check on. Looking for 5'9" players that are wide in the shoulders in the NFL isn't going to pull up much, because there aren't many 5'9" players in the NFL playing anything but speed positions. Weightlifters, boxers, basketball players, football players, baseball players and more all fail the dreaded BMI test.

Average build is average because it's average, not "vast majority". Here's a government site on the matter:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/publ...tm#limitations

So BMI doesn't really work with old people, athletes or people with broad shoulders/muscular bodies. It's not as if there's just a 1% "oops" rate here. It doesn't handle the muscle/fat weight difference very well.

Here, check out the sample of some "overweight/obese" people in the listed chart from the following site:

http://themiddlemanager.wordpress.co...blem-with-bmi/

I could keep citing examples, just as I could cite studies which show BMI to be problematic when it comes to predicting health issues, but there's really no need to get further afield. BMI is far too unreliable to be a worthwhile indicator, and that's really the point here.

So Silock is anorexic? Whatever.

Pro athletes ARE in the minority. There are 32 starting NFL quarterbacks IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

I think the main argument is that BMI is not going to be a fair assessment tool for the government to be using in this scenario. FAr as I'm concerned the government shouldn't have access to my medical records anyway. This healthcare crunch they are pushing is a load of crap.

The only thing I know about Silock is that he puts far too much stock in the BMI.

I didn't say that pro athletes weren't in the minority.

I really don't see how any of these charts can be remotely considered anything outside of a mere suggestion. They have a purpose as an average benchmark but that is it.

Well, we don't know the specifics.

But if someone has a very, very high BMI, like above 35, it's safe to assume they're obese and probably could use some help, like enrollment in Obama's National Weight Loss Concentration Camp.

Oh, well how stupid of me to think taste should be a factor in what we choose to eat.

Agree. Frozen vegetables usually taste like ass unless you buy the more expensive ones that are fairly good but that defeats the cheap part.

So if I read this right, ban high calorie food, ban large portions, and get a bunch of weight loss and nutrition experts working with everyone 'for free' but no government action. Makes a shit ton of sense.

Bull ****ing shit, I live 15 minutes from that minor league team and I've never even SEEN one of these burgers except in pictures on the internet.

And yet, NONE of those players are anywhere close to an average build. Like I've said about a hundred times in this thread already, BMI doesn't work well at all for professional athletes. They are simply too extreme, many are not naturally that large, and it just isn't applicable to those extreme cases. Out of the hundreds of millions of Americans, we're talking about less than 1% of the population, even if you factor in NCAA athletes and professionals. If there are around 4 million athletes, and 307 million Americans, who is the minority?

I don't want to play semantics, but I think you know what I meant. You can safely lower your body fat to around 5-7% for men and stay there pretty much indefinitely. Most people aren't even close to those levels.

No, what I said is that BMI doesn't work for professional athletes. It's a point that I've already conceded. BMI doesn't work well for professional athletes. It would be interesting to see, though, what changes are seen in their BMI once they retire and stop working out so intensely.

And? None of those categories will put a dent in the majority of people.

As I've already said it doesn't.

And yet another site full of examples of people in the minority.

I'm not "putting stock" in it so much as I'm simply trying to say that using extreme examples to support why it sucks isn't a good idea. Most people simply don't fall into that classification.

Again, I never said it's the end-all, be-all of measurements. It's just a tool that for most Americans, works pretty well as an assessment of how overweight one is.

Tell you this - I'll sum up my argument simply:

BMI doesn't work for everyone, especially not professional athletes. Most people fall into the average range for whom the BMI works quite well. It's not perfect. It shouldn't be used as any kind of sole determinant of the quality of health of a person. It's not as inaccurate a measurement as many people like to believe.

It is a factor. Anything flash frozen tastes just fine. And again, much of the taste aspect comes with how you thaw it. Watch the episode of Good Eats called "Frozen Cache" and Alton Brown shows you exactly how to properly thaw (and freeze) foods that maximize their storage life and taste once you thaw them from frozen.

Is frozen the best option for taste? Of course not. But it's not nearly pig-slop, either, if frozen and thawed properly.

We live in a free country.


If a person wants to drink Crisco and snort bacon grease, more power to them. If they want to grow to 1300 pounds, I have no problem with that, either.
Don't expect me to have sympathy for you, and definately don't expect me to pay for care.

Now that we have opened the door and allowed the government into our healthcare, we should expect more and more of this bullshit.

When the government gets involved with anything, our freedoms go down the shitter.

If you have health insurance you're currently paying for that person's care. They spread the costs over as many people as they can.

I'm not making the argument that a government plan is better. I'm just saying that we're all currently tied together anyway.

This thread is so, so frustrating to read. It is jumping around everywhere; from debate over fresh vs frozen vegetables, to government health care.

I think there are plenty of factors to blame for the obesity problem in the USA, it can't just be narrowed down to one issue.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyD9ftpzKj0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyD9ftpzKj0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I agree and I think it's wrong. If a person eats themselves to blue whale proportions, they need to take the responablility of paying for their fatass.


It will never happen, though. We live in an entitlement and blame everyone but ourself society.

This is exactly right. It's the fault of McDonald's that you had the double cheese and fries combo with an X-large Coke instead of making a salad at home and drinking tea or water.

It's the fault of the DVD player that you sat on your ass all day watching TV instead of going outside and taking a walk. Then again, that could be the fault of Global Warming!

How is it that this thread is still in the Lounge? Jeez, RWNJ sourced article, endless half-baked attacks on Obama, requisite Muslim terrorist... this thread IS dc.

Well it got great response... probably because 3/4 of Chiefsplanet is fat...

It can go to DC anytime, I have no ego about it. Just thought it would create interesting discussions in the lounge... and it did.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!

http://blog.buzzflash.com/articles/f...sh-mission.jpg

Kudos on predicting GoChiefs to go Full reerun.