Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 11:40:57 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 11:43:49 AM
If you want to eat commie subs why don't you move to North Korea?
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 11:46:04 AM
Post by: Euclidean on September 19, 2007, 11:47:04 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 11:47:41 AM
As in 'Joe Demko eats Sheetz sandwiches' 
Post by: mtnbkr on September 19, 2007, 11:48:51 AM
Chris
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 11:54:18 AM
Aside from the local deli I've been hitting up 2x-3x a week for years, I like Potbelly's and Fire House Subs. Never gotten an under-toasted sub from either and the ingredients are leagues better than Subway.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 11:56:15 AM
I don't like Quiznos too much. I looked at their nutrition information, and just like all fast food, their stuff is a hell of high-fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated oils and other garbage. The "sauces" are all HFC and trans-fats. And LOADS of salt. Even their bread is full of bad for you stuff.
Ick.
Post by: Thor on September 19, 2007, 11:59:00 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 12:00:05 PM
Suck that, Quiznos.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 12:04:01 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 12:06:53 PM
Quote
they offered hotdogs with toppings at 2 for 99 cents.
I hope they're better than 7-11 twofer hot dogs. Last time I ate those I had the sheetz and pukies fertwo days.
Post by: Euclidean on September 19, 2007, 12:08:43 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 12:10:42 PM
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 12:17:31 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 12:19:20 PM
It was the polar opposite of the typical stop-n-rob with a sleepy, bored clerk who doesn't care and outdated, stale food produced by machinery elsewhere.
Post by: Paddy on September 19, 2007, 12:19:34 PM
7-11 hot dogs have been rotating on those cosmoline-caked rollers probably for a month or more. I can't believe you'd willingly eat one.
These were in the bunwarmer thingy, packaged in foil wrappers.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 12:24:00 PM
No Sheetz or Potbelly or Firehouse around here (Saint Louis). Penn Station or Quizno's is usually the way to go, other than mom & pop delis. Branching out from subs a bit, we have Saint Louis Bread Company (Panera) or Einstein Brother's Bagels.
I tried a Lenny's Sub Shop the other day. I didn't like it too much. Anybody like those? Should I give them another try?
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 12:25:47 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 19, 2007, 12:27:39 PM
I thought I'd like Quizno's, but there was something funky about the dressing they put on their sandwiches.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 19, 2007, 12:27:47 PM
Quote
7-11 hot dogs have been rotating on those cosmoline-caked rollers probably for a month or more. I can't believe you'd willingly eat one.
Are you kiddin'?
That's a feast fit for a king! Especially with the pseudo-cheese and -chili that has that gloppy, half-dried out sauce booger right at the beginning. A couple of dogs with extra scoops of whatever hasn't completely set solid in the condiment bins, a bag of Cheetos, and a quart of chocolate milk is guaranteed to set you right.Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 19, 2007, 12:34:49 PM
Hey, Brad, you wanna hit the White Castle with me?
Wish we had one.
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 12:35:56 PM
mmm, forgot Panera Bread and the Atlanta Bread Company. Don't get to eat at those as often as I like.
Check out the nutrition information. A lot of their sandwiches are 600-800 calories and something like 45g of fat.
Yes, they're worse than eating a Big Mac.
I thought I'd like Quizno's, but there was something funky about the dressing they put on their sandwiches.
That's cause the sauce is a mix of high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup solids, and partially hydrogenated oil. With some natural and artificial flavor.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 12:39:14 PM
Post by: erik the bold on September 19, 2007, 12:40:56 PM
Hey, Brad, you wanna hit the White Castle with me?
Ahhh... The infamous sliders. Glad they finally built one by me. Didn't have one for 10-years after I left the Detroit area.
OTOH, Tubby's Subs are pretty good too...
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 12:42:12 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 12:45:46 PM
Quote
I have no idea how Panera manages to make a panini sandwich have more fat and salt than two hamburgers
Nor do I, but God bless them for it.
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 12:46:28 PM
FWIW, the Panera sandwiches I'm looking at are 350-400 calories, which seems to be about par for the course.
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 12:47:23 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 19, 2007, 12:48:55 PM
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 12:49:32 PM
I don't see a panini listed at over 440 cals (with mayo - yech)
Look again on the info for each one. At the top.
HALF PORTION.
That's half the sandwich! Like with a soup and sandwich. So if you get a full Frontega Chicken sandwich, it's 880 calories, 42g of fat, 78g of carbs, 8g saturated fat, and 2300mg of sodium!
No wonder Americans are turning into waddlers, huh?
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 12:53:44 PM
I like all these places for the taste, rather than any perceived health benefit compared to fast food. Though I doubt my style of plain sandwich is doing much harm.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 12:58:59 PM
Post by: Joe Demko on September 19, 2007, 12:59:57 PM
Post by: cosine on September 19, 2007, 01:51:11 PM
Aside from the local deli I've been hitting up 2x-3x a week for years, I like Potbelly's and Fire House Subs. Never gotten an under-toasted sub from either and the ingredients are leagues better than Subway.
Potbelly's is good stuff. There are a couple around Milwaukee. I've only been there once, but it was good.
I usually get sub sandwiches from Cousin's, as mentioned by Monkeyleg. They're pretty good, and it doesn't help that there's one a half a block from campus.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 19, 2007, 01:52:44 PM
Quote
In N Out
Stop it. I ate at the In N Out's while I was on the West coast. Hit one in Kingman, AZ and Barstow, CA.
Really, really wish we had them in SC. The fries were divine, the burgers great, and it didn't hurt the wallet.
Post by: SteveS on September 19, 2007, 02:24:11 PM
Oh you big wussies, grousing about something so delicate as a hamburger. You want a man sandwich? How about a Monte Cristo ... a double-decker ham and cheese with mayo that is battered, deep-fried, and served with jelly. The only thing that would make it any better is if it had bacon on it.
Brad
Brad
I love those. I hate to admit this, but I would eat one with bacon on it. Maybe I'll ask nest time I get one.
Post by: mfree on September 19, 2007, 02:26:51 PM
Slide over a slide some money to the cashier, he slides them over to ya... slide into the car, slide one out of the bag (box) and slide it right on down your throat.
Then slide on home, 'cause your intestines will be slidin' away in a few hours.
Post by: charby on September 19, 2007, 04:21:25 PM
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
Another forgotten goodie: Baker Bros. American Deli. Amazing 'eggspun' bread that I'm sure manedwolf would frown upon. (nb: based on my apparent knowledge of sandwich chains, it might appear that I'm pushing 400 pounds - I'm not, really! I just have to eat lunch on the road every day and try to rotate through all the sandwich spots I can find.)
Post by: thebaldguy on September 19, 2007, 04:53:17 PM
When I came back to Minnesota in 1986, I almost cried when I had so called "subs" from a place called Clark's Submarine sandwiches. Bad. Very bad. I remember a place called Big Mike's Super Subs that was pretty good in the late 80's. It was as close to a good sub as you could get in Minnesota. I think they're called Milio's now, but they aren't as good as Big Mike's.
I eat at Subway when I have a coupon, because I don't think they're subs are worth full price. Quizno's are good, but way overpriced. Sometimes I eat at Cousins, Potbelly, and Jimmie John's, but I think I like more local small chain places the best. Pizzaoli and Erbert's & Gerberts are pretty good.
None are as good as those New Jersey subs. I went back to New Jersey a few years ago with my girlfriend; we hit a few of those local Jersey sub shops. She liked them a lot as well.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 19, 2007, 04:55:55 PM
Amazing 'eggspun' bread
Challah bread?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 06:07:53 PM
Post by: Dannyboy on September 19, 2007, 06:08:55 PM
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 19, 2007, 06:17:25 PM
Galligaskins and Grinder Man Ive only seen in one metropolitan area each, but they set such a high standard for your basic cheese and salami sub that I cant stand Subway or Cousins. I dont like Arbys, either, although I dont think of them as a cheese and salami place so much as a roast beef place.
Ive never been to White Castle, although Ive seen them. Sliders ? The term I heard associated with Castle was belly bombers , not in a bad way.
Monte Cristos are good. You wouldnt think they would be, but they are.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 06:30:29 PM
I don't eat subs unless I'm home in South Jersey. Having the good fortune to be in a family that owns a deli, I've pretty much been spoiled as far as subs go. If it's not made with bread from one of two Atlantic City bakeries, it ain't worth eating. I truly pity you guys eating Subway and Quizno's. Man, if we ever needed a pukie smiley, now is the time.
I hope you need the Just Kidding smiley, Mr. SnobbyPants.
Post by: cosine on September 19, 2007, 06:57:25 PM
I like Jimmy Johns better than Quiznos and Subway.
There's a Jimmy John's two steps off of Marquette's campus. I've been there a few times. Not bad, but I prefer Cousin's. Might just be that individual shop though.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on September 19, 2007, 07:37:39 PM
Whole ham muffaletta from Jason's Deli or a pastrami and swiss on rye from Schlotzky's.
Of course, it can't compete with the muffaletta from the old Fertitta's Grocery on Allen St. in Shreveport, LA.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: K Frame on September 19, 2007, 07:53:27 PM
Thus armed you were up at least until 10 the next morning.
A few years later I was working in Lewistown. They had two Sheetz there, and were just coming out with their MTO (Made To Order) sandwiches. A lady doing a survey for Sheetz called me. Just a quick survey... OK, but it has to be quick, I have stuff on the grill outside. She started asking question after question after question... "I'm almost done!" My answer to virtually all of them was no, because I had never tried an MTO at that point. Finally, after she kept saying I'm almost done, I simply hung up. She called back and started giving me a ration of crap for hanging up. I hung up on her again. After dinner, I walked down the street to the Sheetz and got the contact information for the corporate office. Next day I actually end up talking to the CEO of the company. He was very perturbed and I ended up getting a bunch of Sheetz gift cards, around $100 worth, IIRC.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 19, 2007, 07:56:36 PM
They packed their sandwiches so full that there was no way you could eat them without dropping something on the table or floor. They were huge.
I don't suppose you're old enough to remember Surburpia, are you?
Post by: Thor on September 19, 2007, 09:14:45 PM
Post by: Fly320s on September 20, 2007, 04:49:03 AM
I like Quiznos (Prime Rib sandwich), Schlotzkys, Galligaskins, Grinder Man (Grinder), and the Primo Italiano in the Safeway deli.
Holy cow, I haven't thought of Galligaskins in years. I loved that place. Are they still around in Dallas?
e.t.a: Yep, I found one on Camp Bowie in Ft. Worth. Hopefully, I can swing by there when I'm in town next month.
Post by: charby on September 20, 2007, 05:09:22 AM
Jimmy who? I think they have one in Urbana, about three long hours from here.
http://www.jimmyjohns.com/
Actually I really miss the sub place in Cedar Falls and Waterloo, Iowa called Sub City. I had numerous lunches there while working on my BA and MA. I try and stop there when I am visiting or passing through town.
Iowa City, IA and the Quad Cities has a place called Hungry Hobo that has some tasty subs, especially if you like vinegar on your sub.
Here in Ames we have two mom and pop places that have awesome subs. Downtown Deli which serves slim type subs and West-street Deli which is more like a sandwich shop than a sub joint with bizarre yet tasty sandwiches. Both are owned separately and not related.
-C
Post by: Manedwolf on September 20, 2007, 05:14:58 AM
Awesome steak sandwiches and many other things. They might not be as good anymore since they're now part of a "food service group".
Another good place is Cheeburger Cheeburger. Very flavorful, if insanely-sized burgers.
http://www.cheeburger.com/locations.asp
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 20, 2007, 05:33:35 AM
Quote
I haven't thought of Galligaskins in years. I loved that place. Are they still around in Dallas?
You are correct, the Dallas - Fort Worth area is the only place I've seen them. I haven't been back in DFW in quite a while.The stores had flyers on their walls telling the customer about themselves, and I believe they said they originated back in Boston or thereabouts.
Great sandwiches, very tangy with those banana peppers (as I recall) they threw on.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 20, 2007, 07:22:38 AM
Quote
Subway is the Wal-Mart of sandwich shops.
Probably explains why there's a Subway shop inside our local Wal-Mart.
We have a Cousin's, a Milio's, a Jimmy John's, a Quizno's, and of course, the aforementioned Subway in my little town. Then I head south to Madison...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 12:42:44 PM
Do they serve any alcohol?
Post by: charby on September 20, 2007, 12:49:20 PM
Well, I'll be. There are about four Jimmy John's in my area, one that's not far away. Thanks, Charby.
Do they serve any alcohol?
Do they serve any alcohol?
Not here in Ames they don't, they serve sandwiches, chips, cookies and soda. I imagine nowhere else a Jimmy Johns serves alcohol either.
All the sandwiches are awesome.. my favorite is the Italian Night Club, a pickle and Vinegar and Salt potato chips.
-C
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2007, 12:52:04 PM
Well, I'll be. There are about four Jimmy John's in my area, one that's not far away. Thanks, Charby.
Do they serve any alcohol?
Do they serve any alcohol?
Do you want alcohol, or do you want to stay away from places that serve it?
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 12:52:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 01:34:54 PM
Do you want alcohol, or do you want to stay away from places that serve it?
The latter. I hope we can leave it at that, so as to stay on topic. If you want to talk about it, we could get into it on another thread. But then, this is your thread already.
Changing the subject.
Anybody know Moe's Southwest Grill? One just opened up here. Great place.
Post by: charby on September 20, 2007, 01:52:36 PM
Also they come as described on the menu, they don't ask what toppings and condiments you like, so be prepared if you don't like something or are allergic to tell them when you order.
-C
Post by: wooderson on September 20, 2007, 02:34:07 PM
Never realized how many sandwich chains there are in the Metroplex. Never been to Galigaskins for some reason.
Post by: El Tejon on September 20, 2007, 03:27:22 PM
There's a Subway across from my office. The girls usually make a run there if I do lunch. Had a 6" turkey on wheat with all the veggies today and Sunchips. Got to love fiber (or I will tomorrow).
My favorite sandwhich is a bison burger at Lafayette Brewing Company a few blocks from my office. http://www.lafayettebrewingco.com/ Don't eat a lot of red meat, but when I do bison or ostrich hits the spot!!!
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 04:06:37 PM
Which Wich has the best setup - you walk in and mark up your order on a sandwich bag w/ a Sharpie. No 40 Questions about what you want and don't want.
Now that makes sense.
Post by: MillCreek on September 20, 2007, 04:45:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 05:44:49 PM
Oh, I mean the sandwich shop, not the railroad station.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 20, 2007, 05:55:05 PM
If you have Safeway grocery stores in your area, don't overlook that Primo Italiano in their deli.
Plenty of meat and cheese, some sort of country-style Italian bread, plus the two killer ingredients:
1) peppercinas
2) some sort of butter and olive spread
Number 1 is tangy in a briny sort of way, and complements Number 2, which is buttery and on the sweet side.
Post by: Fly320s on September 20, 2007, 05:57:44 PM
Changing the subject.
Anybody know Moe's Southwest Grill? One just opened up here. Great place.
Anybody know Moe's Southwest Grill? One just opened up here. Great place.
Burrito joint. Not bad, but I like Chipotle (even though it is owned by McDonalds) and Rubio's better; Baja Fresh, too.
Moe's burritos are usually too salty for me.
Post by: Rudy Kohn on September 20, 2007, 06:05:05 PM
Subway is good when you're on the road and don't want to eat anything heavy. Quizno's is also tasty, but I prefer JJ's or Potbelly's.
However, my favorite subs come from a place in Michigan called Captain Nemo's. I think there are six of them, scattered throughout southeastern Michigan. Their sandwiches are divine.
If anybody reading this is around SE Michigan, look them up. Try their corned beef sub. I have never had juicier corned beef. Their turkey club is also fantastic, despite being loaded with fat and cholesterol. They also have breakfast subs.
Every time I go home to Michigan, I try to go at least twice. It's a 20-minute drive there, but so worth it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 07:39:00 PM
Their guac was terrible.
Guac is always terrible. Like sour cream, it was invented by Satan to ruin good Mexican food.
Actually, I just like Moe's because it is the only place I can get something approaching a real fajita. I mean, there's places I could go where the meat is brought to the table sizzling, but those would be actual, sit-down Mexican-themed restaurants. And I don't patronize those for the afore-mentioned reason that I'd rather not bring up again, lest I get us off-topic.
And I so love fajitas.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 07:59:50 PM
Change your avatar. Such a pathetic individual doesn't have the right to use a REAL man as an avatar...
All together now...
AD HOMINEM!
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2007, 08:31:52 PM
Change your avatar. Such a pathetic individual doesn't have the right to use a REAL man as an avatar...
I thought that had been obvious all along.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 20, 2007, 08:53:11 PM
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on September 21, 2007, 03:04:16 AM
~BakerMike
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 21, 2007, 06:08:21 AM
You're all chumps. Jimmy John's is the only way to go, and it better either be a Bootlegger or a Gargantuan, or we can't be friends anymore.
~BakerMike
A risk I'll have to take, I guess. I don't think there are any Jimmy John's in the Phoenix area.
~BakerMike
Post by: johnster999 on September 21, 2007, 06:09:10 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 21, 2007, 06:12:24 AM
Guacamole always reminded me of what was on the bottom of my Yellow-Naped Amazon parrot's cage.
When you get right down to it, just about any food item on the planet looks like another creature's leavings.
Are those black beans or was there a deer through here?
Chicken livers or....
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 06:20:04 AM
Quote
Guac is always terrible. Like sour cream, it was invented by Satan to ruin good Mexican food.
Are you getting real guacamole there in Misery? Made with fresh avocados, cumin, a little diced tomato, onion & serrano chiles, with lime juice and maybe a little cilantro and garlic? Or are you getting some other horrible concoction with (barf) mayonnaise and msg or who knows what?
Or maybe you're just an effete Euro commie
Edited: Laughing smiley added to avoid ad hominy
Post by: Manedwolf on September 21, 2007, 06:24:01 AM
Yuck.
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 06:28:49 AM
Post by: cosine on September 21, 2007, 07:35:17 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 21, 2007, 07:45:37 AM
I made some for a party last year and even the host, who professes to dislike guac, was wearing the bowl like a feed bag.
When I make it I puree about half the avocado in the food processor with the spices and then add the rest of the avocado and give it a coarse mash with a vegetable masher.
Serranos can be kind of hard to find in the DC area, so I normally use a combination of Anaheim (for flavor) and jalapenos (for fire).
Never, EVER use the lime juice out of a bottle. It really detracts from the overall flavor.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 21, 2007, 07:47:50 AM
There was a bit of a scandal a while ago that a lot of the supermarket brands of guacamole, like Kraft, contained no avocado at all.
Yuck.
Yuck.
Kinda like that stuff you get that says "cheese flavored food" even though it's neither.
Quote
Never, EVER use the lime juice out of a bottle. It really detracts from the overall flavor.
I dunno. I've found the bottles taste pretty much the same no matter what's in them.
Brad
Post by: K Frame on September 21, 2007, 07:55:18 AM
Geesh!
Post by: Joe Demko on September 21, 2007, 07:58:32 AM
STOP EATING THE BOTTLE!
Geesh!
Geesh!
I used to scream those exact words at my brother, in the long-long-ago, when he'd eat the little wax bottles with the flavored sugar water in them. Do they still make those?
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 08:15:49 AM
I haven't had sandwiches that good since.
Post by: roo_ster on September 21, 2007, 09:01:02 AM
Whole ham muffaletta from Jason's Deli or a pastrami and swiss on rye from Schlotzky's.
Rabbit:
Ever have Big Easy's muffaletta sandwich (US75 & Park)? If so, how does it compare with Jason's? I really like the BE muffaletta. One quarter sandwich and I am good-to-go.
--------
I know of one Subway worth frequenting, back in the 1980's. Our neighbors, the Fishgolds, had several Subways. Lenny, the husband, we called "Mr. Negative." Never had a car he liked, never ate a good meal in a restaurant. (Good guy, though.) He insisted on using the best ingredients in his subs and I'll be darned if they weren't the best Subway subs I ever ate.
--------
Down South I think Krystal is the White Castle wannabe. I recall the first/last time I ever entered one. My buddy ordered the 12 -sandwich "combo." I didn't want to look like a wuss, so I ordered one, too.
Twenty-four sliders later, we go to the arcade. It is my bright idea to take a ride on the "virtual rollercoaster." Bad Idea. Neither one of puked IN* the coaster, but my buddy got out, staggered to the restroom, and reverse-chugged them into a toilet. I kept mine down, but I had to hibernate for 3 hours when we got home.
No more Krystals for jfruser.
* And I thank the Lord, to this day. Since we were strapped down in this fully enclosed box that spun in 6 degrees of freedom, went up & down, back & forth, and we were upside down at times. Popping in there would have been the definition of "messy."
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 09:07:19 AM
Quote
I don't like Quiznos too much. I looked at their nutrition information, and just like all fast food, their stuff is a hell of high-fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated oils and other garbage. The "sauces" are all HFC and trans-fats. And LOADS of salt. Even their bread is full of bad for you stuff.
Where are you getting Quizno's nutrition information, Manedwolf? I can't find it on their website.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 21, 2007, 09:25:53 AM
They've actually been mentioned on the news for failing to release their nutritional information.
And Krystals, I believe, is one of the top chains in failing health inspections. Hardee's is the other.
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 12:10:04 PM
BBUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP! Quizno's pastrami for lunch. Good.
Post by: thebaldguy on September 21, 2007, 04:02:03 PM
Friends of mine from New Orleans call subs "Po' Boys". It's an old term that's been around for a long time. They would fill you up, and were cheap so a poor boy could get some food at a cheap price. I guess they rank right up there with the famous east coast subs.
Post by: K Frame on September 21, 2007, 07:50:03 PM
Unfortunately, here in the mid Atlantic, it's almost impossible to find one.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 21, 2007, 09:48:42 PM
Depending on who you ask, everything is bad for you these days, even di-hydrogen oxide.
I laughed so hard my ribs hurt when they played the "Supersize Me" DVD at our squadron health and wellness day a while ago.
Those fat kids who sued McDonald's?
They should've done their research. Everybody knows spoons are what made Rosie O'Donnell fat, too.
Post by: thebaldguy on September 22, 2007, 05:17:49 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 22, 2007, 07:04:34 PM
Manedwolf, for somebody who was pondering eating post-dated MREs, isn't there some granola and tofu joint you need to be at?
Depending on who you ask, everything is bad for you these days, even di-hydrogen oxide.
I laughed so hard my ribs hurt when they played the "Supersize Me" DVD at our squadron health and wellness day a while ago.
Those fat kids who sued McDonald's?
They should've done their research. Everybody knows spoons are what made Rosie O'Donnell fat, too.
Depending on who you ask, everything is bad for you these days, even di-hydrogen oxide.
I laughed so hard my ribs hurt when they played the "Supersize Me" DVD at our squadron health and wellness day a while ago.
Those fat kids who sued McDonald's?
They should've done their research. Everybody knows spoons are what made Rosie O'Donnell fat, too.
Eating a steak, hamburger or other meats with natural fats is not bad for you in the way that eating partially hydrogenated oils is. Those have the receptor molecule locations all f-ed up, so the body can't process them as it should, and they end up getting stuck in places they shouldn't. Butter, likewise. Eating butter is much better for you than simulated butter flavor margarine with trans-fats in it.
Same with sugar. Eating sugar, drinking sugar drinks isn't bad like consuming high-fructose corn syrup is. The body can deal with metabolizing cane sugar or honey. HFC is, to the metabolism, like drinking from a firehose, and is probably part of the explosion of Type II diabetes.
It's not the fat and sugar. It's the screwed-up cheaper versions they've made that are metabolic poisons. You're way better eating a 32oz steak accompanied by sugar-sweetened lemonade than you are eating a piece of processed food with HFC and trans-fats accompanied by a HFC-sweetened soft drink.
Trans-fats extended the shelf life of products and are cheaper, that's why they're used. But they're trash for your body. Nobody is saying eat tofu and granola...tofu is gross anyway. Just keep to the more, well...real things, real meat, real vegetables, real sugar, and you're good.
Just need to read labels. There's one loaf of bread made with cane sugar for every ten with HFC, but there's usually at least one brand on the shelves in every supermarket. Just got to read.
Post by: K Frame on September 22, 2007, 10:30:39 PM
Yeah.
THIS week.
Next week, we might find out that partially hydrogenated fats actually cure cancer, malaria, whooping cough, and pissy attitudes while eating even a molecule of soybean oil will make your testicles explode.
What's "healthy" and what's not has changed so damned many times over the past 20 years that it's insane.
BUTTER IS THE GREAT SATAN! EAT MARGERINE!
No, it now appears that butter is much better for you than most margerines, because margerine contains trans fat!
STOP DRINKING COFFEE! EVEN ONE CUP WILL CAUSE YOUR HEART TO CLOG!
No, it now appears that coffee is benign, and it may in fact have legitimate health benefits.
Give it a few seconds. It will change.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 23, 2007, 09:49:02 AM
It ain't the food that's the problem. It's the kids eating at Mickey D's 3 times a day, 7 days a week, while sitting on their posteriors with their X-Box consoles.
I worked my own posterior off on a dairy farm as a high-schooler. We ate what would be considered lethal breakfasts, calorie and fat counts unknown, all done in bacon grease. It made the meals on Deadliest Catch seem lightweight in comparison.
We were all healthy, and to this day I still have good cholesterol and BP numbers, staying in my target weight for my height.
It ain't rocket science. Burn the calories you eat.
I do like tofu in my hot and sour soup, so I hope they don't find it's bad for you.
Eventually, they will, though. Just like red wine is
I have a deep fryer on the kitchen counter, filled with peanut oil. If I die from it and the french fries I make from my garden potatoes, it'll be with a big friggin' smile on my face, because they went down my pie-hole with a chunk of prime rib and were washed down with a big glass of moo juice. Put that in the state-sponsored healthcare agenda, because you know that'll be part of their education plan, sure as *expletive deleted*it.
(That's my public-service commercial for the week...)
Post by: Paddy on September 23, 2007, 11:42:34 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 07:40:19 AM
Quote
the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you.
According to whom? I see a lot of health nazi stuff about this but very, very little supporting evidence past the usual pop-nutrition propaganda. "Processed" could be made to mean anything. Nutritional content is nutritional content whether it's been "processed" or not.
Brad
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 07:58:53 AM
the bran and the coat of the grain are often removed. It loses nutrients and fiber. These smart businessmen then package up the stuff they removed and sell it back to us suckers as 'supplements'.
Preocessing removes good stuff from food and adds chemicals, preservatives, colorings and a bunch of other sythentic crap.
Not good. Eating foods closest to the 'natural state' is best for you.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 09:17:39 AM
Just because something is "processed" is irrelevant. On a strictly technical level you could call any cut of beef "processed". After all, it has been altered from its natural state. If water has been filtered to remove impurities, it's been processed because it isn't like it came out of the ground (or the lake, or the cistern, or whatever). Heck, cooking is the ultimate "processing". The heat creates all kinds of reactions and alterations. Some are good, some are bad. Again, it depends on the item and how it's cooked.
Now, does that mean I think that a grain with the bran removed is just as good for you as a gran without? No. It means that I am separating the terminology from any specific procedure. Using "processing" to describe something as unhealthy is like using the terms "metal" or "plastic". It covers a very broad spectrum of items, issues, conditions, and potential results, both positive and negative.
I stopped parroting the food goobers years ago when I realized the truth. Saying that "processed food is bad" is a gross misnomer. It is a catch-all phrase coined by people who didn't know any better, didn't care to learn the truth, or were out to scare you or their legislator into their way of thinking. Each item and each process is unique in its properties and outcome. I would much rather have "processed" water that's had baterial contanimants and heavy metals removed than to have a "natural" apple covered in fly feces (which is natural, too).
The "anti-processed" mindset has become so appallingly pervasive that a good friend of mine won't touch distilled water because it "can't be as good as real water." She will not be swayed, either. I have actually heard her utter the phrase "That water isn't real water" more than once. Give. Me. Strenth.
If I try to show her the truth she gets all over me. She's called me any number of things, most of which can't be repeated here. Suffice it to say that she is convinced I've been brainwashed by "big food." Lord forbid I try to use a little actual science to try and sway her. Science, any science, is like instant MEGO juice for her. Her usual response is to launch into some off-the-wall regurgitation of pop-nutrition hearsay that one of her friends forwarded to her in an e-mail.Brad
Post by: grislyatoms on September 24, 2007, 09:28:38 AM
Riley stated " As a general rule, the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you."
He didn't state "All processed foods are bad for you."
I try to avoid highly processed stuff too.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 24, 2007, 09:35:28 AM
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2007, 09:41:18 AM
Generally, I view "processed" as in balogna vs ham cut from a cured shoulder or cheese wiz compared to blocks of cheddar.
Chris
Chris
Agreed. Even in simpler things. A potato cut into pieces, tossed into boiling peanut oil, then taken out and salted with sea salt, vs. potato chips with an ingredients list that reads like a chemistry lab's contents.
The one I really go "yuck" at is the so-called "yogurt" covered things like yogurt-covered pretzels or cereal with yogurt-covered bits. It's not yogurt at all, it's pretty much a composite of partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil and corn syrup solids. Yuck.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 09:48:33 AM
Quote
Brad,
Riley stated " As a general rule, the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you."
Riley stated " As a general rule, the more highly processed it is, the less nutrition it has, and the worse it is for you."
Even inferring that processing is "generally" bad is, in my opinion, a gross and intentional misuse of the terminology. At the very least it is a broad generaliztion that lacks any real meaning and is only used to inflame a "generally" ignorant society to a state of panic more unhealthy than the foods and processes in question.
In the context of nutritional value it's an irrelevant term. I take each food and each process on its own unique merits. I don't give a rat's rear where or how it's "processed". That's worrying for worry's sake. and is a useless waste of time. What matters is the "right now" condition of the food on my plate and how it affects my body and mind.
Quote
A potato cut into pieces, tossed into boiling peanut oil, then taken out and salted with sea salt, vs. potato chips with an ingredients list that reads like a chemistry lab's contents.
To the "processed food" nazis it doesn't matter. Both are processed, so both are equally bad for you.
Now I will say the bologna statement had an impact on me. It made me hungry...
Brad
Post by: BrokenPaw on September 24, 2007, 09:55:55 AM
Generally, I view "processed" as in balogna vs ham cut from a cured shoulder or cheese wiz compared to blocks of cheddar.
Chris, Cheez Whiz and Velveeta aren't actually processed very much. The Kraft plant out on Ball's Ford Road is actually a Velveeta mine. Cheez Whiz is one of the by-products of the mining process, but it doesn't burn, so they can't flare it off the way natural gas is flared off at oil rigs.
Gods, my kids are going to have a warped perspective on the world.
-BP
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 24, 2007, 09:57:03 AM
Quote
The "anti-processed" mindset has become so appallingly pervasive that a good friend of mine won't touch distilled water because it "can't be as good as real water." She will not be swayed, either. I have actually heard her utter the phrase "That water isn't real water" more than once. Give. Me. Strenth.
I'd tell her that the water she drinks today was peed out by various lifeforms over the history of the earth before it ended up in the aquifer one more time for her consumption.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 24, 2007, 09:58:57 AM
I have some vegan/strict vegetarian friends and even they aren't as strict as your water fearing friend.
Chris
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 10:13:49 AM
I think it's because they're not getting the basic nutrition they need from all this plastic food. So they eat more and more of it because their bodies are screaming for nutrients. They pack on the weight and fill themselves full of chemicals and preservatives. No thanks.
No 'food nazi' here. Let anybody eat whatever they want. Let the lardasses keel over and get them the hell out of my way
Manedwolf, I think you're right. I ate Quizno's four days last week and by the 5th day I wasn't feeling too good. It bound me up and I felt toxic.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 24, 2007, 10:17:23 AM
Quote
OK, one simple question: If all this 'processing' is so benign, why is this country full of huge overweight waddling fatasses who can't stop stuffing their mouths?
Because they'd be overweight waddling fatasses if they ate simple unprocessed fats and didn't exercise those calories off, too.
Eat at Wendy's 5 days a week, and exercise just your thumbs on the X-Box controller, or just your typing fingers in the office cubicle, and you'll be wearing elastic waistband trousers, too.
It ain't rocket science.
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 10:26:29 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 10:27:09 AM
The problem with "processing" is that it *can* make a particular food item less healthy than you'd otherwise expect. This doesn't include foods cooked from scratch at home, but stuff that's prepackaged and sold at stores (canned foods with lots of additives, substitutes, etc).
I have some vegan/strict vegetarian friends and even they aren't as strict as your water fearing friend.
Chris
I have some vegan/strict vegetarian friends and even they aren't as strict as your water fearing friend.
Chris
That it can make something less healthy isn't in question. My issue is that so many people use can and does interchageably, though most of the time it is either unintentional or based on a lack of experience/knowledge. What really makes my hackles stand on end is when people intentionally misuse the terminology. They sneak in just enough sound-good everyday terminology to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are trusting their health and wellfare to these so-called experts. In this case it has become so pervasive that refutation of the disparity creates more than a little animosity.
I have the same issue with people who confuse possible and probable. Just because something might happen doesn't mean it will. Anything is possible, but probability is dictated by issue and circumstance.
Quote
If all this 'processing' is so benign, why is this country full of huge overweight fatasses who can't stop stuffing their mouths?
You've tried to merge a procedure and a mindset. They are two distinctly seperate issues.
Quote
I think it's because they're not getting the basic nutrition they need from all this plastic food. So they eat more and more of it because their bodies are screaming for nutrients. They pack on the weight and fill themselves full of chemicals and preservatives. No thanks.
It is a simple matter of poor nutritional choices and even poorer lifestyle choices. It has exactly zero to do with "plastic food." They choose a calorie-laden Coke over a glass of iced tea. They eat a double cheeseburger instead of roasted chicken with grilled vegtables. They sit on the couch and watch Seinfeld instead of walking around the block or taking the kids to the park. They consume more calories than they burn. They calories they do consume lack nutritional value because they don't take the time to care, they just grab the next bag of whatever tickles their fancy.
Blaming "processed food" for the weight problem in America is exactly like blaming guns for crime. The problem isn't the object, it's the person making the choices.
"Chemicals and preservatives" is an unrelated issue. Bringing it into the debate on an unrelated topic is right out of the food police "scare you into our way of thinking" playbook.
Quote
The question was why?. It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds. Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous. Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?
Because THEY CHOOSE TO. The propose anything else is to presume that they have no free will and that their actions are either pre-determined or controlled by outside forces.
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2007, 10:33:49 AM
Quote
The question was why?. It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds. Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous. Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?
Right now, it's a vicious circle. People choose to eat too much, and food merchants are selling quantity as value.
Name me some places where you can get a SMALL sandwich anymore. Like just enough, half a grilled chicken sandwich or something, not a ginormous sandwich with two heavy sides, something blopped with mayo, or a "wrap" the size of a five-inch cannon shell?
Anyone remember when "muffins" were little things that were eight to a tray, not the gigantic 800-calorie things with streusel toppings they are now?
A tiny corn muffin fresh from the oven is wonderful, a pat of butter tucked into it. But the ubiquitous heavy, moist and sickly-sweet "muffins" I see for sale every place would make me sick if I ate a whole one. I was fortunate to find some place close to work that will do a 5oz grilled burger with a pickle on the side, and that's it. That's plenty!
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 10:35:06 AM
Quote
"Chemicals and preservatives" is an unrelated issue. Bringing it into the debate on an unrelated topic is right out of the food police "scare you into our way of thinking" playbook.
OK. It's a conspiracy. It isn't an 'unrelated issue'. You body consumes nutrients getting rid of all that added crap, which compounds the problem.
Unless you've got a degree in Nutrition, Brad, I'll take the advice of those who do.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 24, 2007, 10:40:33 AM
Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 10:42:01 AM
The question was why?. It's not just a few X-Box playing nerds. Men, women, adolescents, even children are getting humongous. Yes, they eat too much, but why do they eat too much?
He gave you the answer WHY.
The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.
It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.
A few years ago I met up with some Europeans I knew who were making their first trips to the United States.
They were absolutely aghast at the enormous portions they got at restaurants. One "American sized" meal would be good for two or three European meals.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 24, 2007, 10:42:04 AM
Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 10:43:10 AM
You might be able to do it with avocados or olives. Both are relatively high in calories due to the high oil content.
As far as chemical preservatives go, there is no reliable data that even hints at chemical preservatives causing increased weight among Americans.
If that were really true, virtually every nation on earth would be equally affected.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2007, 10:46:24 AM
They were absolutely aghast at the enormous portions they got at restaurants. One "American sized" meal would be good for two or three European meals.
In my experience, some traditional European meals (French, German, Italian) might seem to have a lot of food, but that's done when the eating is a social thing spaced out over several hours of conversation and courses of food, not shoveled into one's mouth in five minutes.
A traditional Irish breakfast is thick-cut bacon, tomatoes, eggs, ham, white and black puddings (sausages made with oatmeal and pig's blood, respectively), sometimes oatmeal as well, and soda bread, but it's a leisurely meal, and was typically consumed by people who then went out and worked their asses off, burning off those calories.
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 10:47:20 AM
Hey Chris, I think he's calling you!
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 10:50:07 AM
Quote
He gave you the answer WHY.
The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.
It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.
The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.
It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.
That's the "HOW", not the "WHY".
What caused the demand for increased portion sizes? Lack of nutrients in overprocessed food. Simple.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 10:50:38 AM
Quote
Unless you've got a degree in Nutrition, Brad, I'll take the advice of those who do.
Two years ago January I had a degreed, board-certified nutritionist beat me over the head with the "refined sugar" argument, but couldn't tell me what "refined" sugar actually was. When she did finally offer an explanation it was the bleaching process they use for white flour. The doctor was sitting right there in the room with us, nodding his head in agreement.
My jaw about hit the floor.
So, a licensed, certified nutritionist and a medical doctor hadn't the foggiest clue about what is probably the single most common nutritional myth on the planet. Just because they went to school and have letters after their name doesn't make them any less human, or any less susceptable to bad information. I spend a great deal of time researching the facts before I haul off and make a decision on something as critical as my nutrional needs. Most of that time is getting to the bottom of the mountain of bad information.
I want to know why something is bad, not presume it's that way because someone on Good Morning America said so. Unfortunately, I find that a great deal of nutritional "advice" isn't. It's someone's opinion of nutrition based on a questionable interpretation of shaky source data.
Quote
What caused the demand for increased portion sizes? Lack of nutrients in overprocessed food. Simple.
Um, no. It was restaurants trying to keep their customer base by offering larger portions for the same price, thus giving the consumer a sense of "better value for my money."
Quote
Start counting calories, it'll frighten you how much you consume in a day.
Amen, brother. I would venture a guess that most people's estimation of the daily caloric intake is wrong by about, oh, a hundred percent or so. Mine was.
Some people will tank up on fruit thinking it's a free ride. It isn't. That sweet little treat contains calories, too, in the form of natural sugars. The average apple has 50-60 calories. Bananas have 115-130. For comparison, an avocado has 190-200 calories (mostly from the oils). In case you didn't know, avocados can be as high as 70% oil by weight. Good oil, but oil nonetheless and loaded with calories (around 9 per gram, if memory serves).
Brad
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2007, 10:52:55 AM
Maned, I frequently get a kids meal at fast food joints because that's about the only way to get a reasonable portion.
Chris
Chris
That's what I do if I get ice cream. The kiddie-sized portion is quite enough. At least in this area, a regular is like three scoops of full-cream ice cream. I'd be physically ill if I ate that.
And yes, giant-sized portions is a very cheap way for food vendors to offer a perception of value at actually very little increase in cost to them. It's not the amount of food that costs the most, it's the prep time for each individual item. Besides, they can (and do) doublesize something while keeping the same amount of meat or other expensive ingredient as the original, just adding more fillers like starches to make the portion bigger.
Hence the giant-looking "pile" entrees at places like Friday's that are actually really mostly mashed potatoes, fried onions and other dirt-cheap ingredients stacked with the same amount of meat as the old-style small steak. It's a lot more food, but costs little, if any more for them.
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 10:55:14 AM
Quote
So, a licensed, certified nutritionist and a medical doctor hadn't the foggiest clue about what is probably the single most common nutritional myth on the planet. Just because they went to school and have letters after their name doesn't make them any less human, or any less susceptable to bad information. I spend a great deal of time researching the facts before I haul off and make a decision on something as critical as my nutrional needs. Most of that time is getting to the bottom of the mountain of bad information.
They're ALL incompetent charlatans because ONE didn't answer a question to your satisfaction?
Here's what: Find a competent, qualified nutritionist who'll say that a double double bacon cheesburger, large fries and extra large coke provide adequate nutrition in proportion to the calories.
You won't
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 11:02:14 AM
Quote
He gave you the answer WHY.
The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.
It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.
The American lifestyle is FAR more sedentary today than it was even 30 years ago.
It's also not the processing of foods that is the main culprit, it's the QUANTITY.
That's the "HOW", not the "WHY".
What caused the demand for increased portion sizes? Lack of nutrients in overprocessed food. Simple.
You certainly have a very warped sense of causality.
WHY do Americans weight too much? They ingest too many calories and don't get enough exercise.
HOW do Americans gain too much weight? They ingest too many callories and don't get enough exercise.
They're the exact same thing.
To claim that one somehow outstrips the other in the relative order of importance is stupid.
A calorie is a calorie.
Ingest too many calories relative to the amount you burn, whether they come from fat, stoneground whole grains, or honey, and you will gain weight.
To try to claim that the entire reason why Americans weigh too much is because we eat refined foods is akin to believing that the Rods of Ra can make you lose weight if you place them strategically around your house.
It's pretty damned obvious that you don't have a degree in the nutritional sciences, and yet you're freely spreading theories for which there is virtually no concrete scientific support.
Do yourself a favor and quit telling others to stop doing the exact same thing you're doing yourself. It's disingenuous and hypocritical.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 11:03:53 AM
Quote
So, a licensed, certified nutritionist and a medical doctor hadn't the foggiest clue about what is probably the single most common nutritional myth on the planet. Just because they went to school and have letters after their name doesn't make them any less human, or any less susceptable to bad information. I spend a great deal of time researching the facts before I haul off and make a decision on something as critical as my nutrional needs. Most of that time is getting to the bottom of the mountain of bad information.
They're ALL incompetent charlatans because ONE didn't answer a question to your satisfaction?
Nope. They are, however, just as susceptable to bad information masquerading as good information. To have a licenced, certfied nutritionist and an MD right there in the room with me and agreeing with each other on a common food myth was a real eye-opener. In the meantime I've found that many people who should be in the know, aren't. All too often they are mouthpieces for the latest pop-food fashion coming down the pipe.
Brad
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 11:05:34 AM
Quote
To try to claim that the entire reason why Americans weigh too much is because we eat refined foods is akin to believing that the Rods of Ra can make you lose weight if you place them strategically around your house.
Again you mock the Rods of Ra...
Brad
Post by: mtnbkr on September 24, 2007, 11:07:12 AM
Some people will tank up on fruit thinking it's a free ride. It isn't. That sweet little treat contains calories, too, in the form of natural sugars. The average apple has 50-60 calories. Bananas have 115-130. For comparison, an avocado has 190-200 calories (mostly from the oils). In case you didn't know, avocados can be as high as 70% oil by weight. Good oil, but oil nonetheless and loaded with calories (around 9 per gram, if memory serves).
Yeah, but eating 3-4 apples is much harder than 2 candybars and has additional health benefits in the form of fiber, vitamins, etc.
Dried fruit is another thing entirely though (from a calorie to size perspective). I have had to stop eating my new favorite, dates, because I can easily put away several hundred calories-worth. The fiber and other benefits are still there, but they're too easy to over-indulge due to the size.
Chris
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 11:09:12 AM
Quote
Yeah, but eating 3-4 apples is much harder than 2 candybars and has additional health benefits in the form of fiber, vitamins, etc.
I know. I was trying to give perspective, not to know apples. By the way, I like Pink Lady apples in case someone has a case or two laying around.
Quote
I have had to stop eating my new favorite, dates, because I can easily put away several hundred calories-worth.
Currants are an evil little "gotcha", too, at 200 calories.
Brad
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 11:10:38 AM
Quote
Ingest too many calories relative to the amount you burn, whether they come from fat, stoneground whole grains, or honey, and you will gain weight.
That's the point. Overprocessed foods contain way too many calories in proportion to their nutrition.
Quote
It's pretty damned obvious that you don't have a degree in the nutritional sciences, and yet you're freely spreading theories for which there is virtually no concrete scientific support.
Really? You don't there are a plethora of qualified nutritionists who will advise replacing highly processed food with more natural food?
Quote
Do yourself a favor and quit telling others to stop doing the exact same thing you're doing yourself. It's disingenuous and hypocritical.
Uh, I'm not a huge waddling fatass, either.
Sheesh. Nobody's talking about sending out the SWAT teams to shut down Burger King. Chill. Have an apple. I'm going to the range.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2007, 11:11:19 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 11:16:21 AM
Quote
That's the point. Overprocessed foods contain way too many calories in proportion to their nutrition.
Okay, so what about honey? It's pure sugar, but it isn't processed. Or may avocados? They are 2/3 oil, which is about as dense as you can get on the calorie-per-gram scale. Or maybe bacon, sliced right off the hog? It just happens to be mostly fat which is nothing but concentrated calories. Not processed though.
I can keep going if you want me to...
Brad
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 24, 2007, 11:17:36 AM
Quote
The thing about dates and figs and the like though is that if you eat too many, they won't be around long enough for you to worry about digesting...
Brad
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 11:45:36 AM
A recommendation from someone with a degree is NOT the same thing as verifiable, quantifiable evidence derived from long-term studies.
Giving someone a degree does not instantly convey all-knowing godhead status upon them.
There is NO body of direct evidence that shows that the American propensity towards obesity is CAUSED by, or even greatly influenced by, refined foods.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2007, 12:35:19 PM
Name me some places where you can get a SMALL sandwich anymore. Like just enough, half a grilled chicken sandwich or something, not a ginormous sandwich with two heavy sides, something blopped with mayo, or a "wrap" the size of a five-inch cannon shell?
Actually, half a sandwich at Panera is a pretty decent lunch all by itself. Get some free water from the fountain, and you're eatin' good for under three bucks. Your prices may vary.
I usually order the small sandwich at sub shops, as it's quite enough. And usually, the mayo and sides are completely up to you. I wish more places would serve a reasonably-sized cup of ice water, even if I had to pay a nickel for the cup.
What caused the demand for increased portion sizes? Lack of nutrients in overprocessed food. Simple.
A)Cheaper food, mainly a result of advances in refrigeration and farming tech. Edited, because I forgot about the business models that found cheaper ways to sell food. First A&P, then supermarkets.
B)Gluttony. It's not that previous generations didn't want to stuff themselves full of junk food. It's just that they couldn't afford to, money-wise.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 24, 2007, 02:41:40 PM
Quote
B)Gluttony. It's not that previous generations didn't want to stuff themselves full of junk food. It's just that they couldn't afford to, money-wise.
Exactly right.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 24, 2007, 03:31:01 PM
I know she'll be laughing by the end of it.
I can almost hear her asking, "Who is this RileyMc character?"
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 05:05:57 PM
Geez, Fistful, everytime I think I'm going to finally put you on ignore you come across with something truly prescient like that...
I think it was one of the people on Food network who said that Americans have available to them nearly 3 times as many brands of packaged foods as any other nation on earth.
A large part of that is probably the polyglot nature of our society, especially in urban areas. The profusion of ethnic supermarkets in the DC area is just incredible, and the number of ethnic foods carried in the "American" supermarkets is just staggering at times.
While I can't be sure of this, I suspect that, in comparison to other nations, American food also consumes a much smaller part of our personal budgets.
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 05:49:25 PM
I'm printing this thread out and handing it to my sister, who's a degreed University of Wisconsin dietician.
I know she'll be laughing by the end of it.
I can almost hear her asking, "Who is this RileyMc character?"
I know she'll be laughing by the end of it.
I can almost hear her asking, "Who is this RileyMc character?"
I call your bluff, Gewehr98. IF your sister, who is a degreed dietician, contradicts my statements (and I want proof she contradicted them, not second hand from you) I will retract everything I said here.
And even if she does (which I am confident she will not), you've still got Mike Irwin's quote to deal with
Quote
Giving someone a degree does not instantly convey all-knowing godhead status upon them.
Have at it.
Post by: Paddy on September 24, 2007, 06:01:37 PM
Quote
There is NO body of direct evidence that shows that the American propensity towards obesity is CAUSED by, or even greatly influenced by, refined foods.
How do I gently say "Bullshit"? You don't need a 'direct body of evidence' (whatever that is) to understand a few simple facts:
1) Overprocessed foods (most of what we eat) have been stripped of their original nutrients, vitamin, minerals, enzymes, etc. IOW, the stuff your body needs. Fructose, fat, chemicals, preservatives, colorings, artificial 'flavorings', and all sorts of (who knows what?) are added.
2) The human body needs the nutrients, not the additives.
3) People eat more (yes, that's the cause of obesity, eating more as a result of processed foods), they ingest more sugars and fats while their bodies are screaming for basic nutrients, and the wind up being huge waddling fatasses.
If you need a protracted multimillion dollar 'study' to demonstrate that, I think you're way behind the power curve, so to speak.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2007, 07:03:32 PM
I thought fructose and fat were natural sources of nutrition, found in the un-processed foods eaten by previous generations.
Post by: wooderson on September 24, 2007, 07:33:16 PM
Quote
Also, I want to know how a lack of nutrients can make a person fat.
If I had to venture a guess:Lack of nutrients means you aren't filling up (for long) means you're having to put away more food to keep your stomach from rumbling. More food = more calories = more of a fat-ass.
The lack of nutrients also means that whatever you are eating is made up of 'empty calories' - those things that go straight to your belly.
By fructose, I would guess Riley is referring to 'high fructose corn syrup.' I avoid that stuff whenever possible - and sometimes it's not. Corn Flakes is loaded with it! My beloved Corn Flakes, the best dry snack food on earth.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2007, 07:39:01 PM
Also, I suspected as much about fructose. I'm just wondering if Riley knows the difference.
Or maybe actual fructose is added to foods? Like I said, they are sincere questions.
Post by: K Frame on September 24, 2007, 08:33:47 PM
Overprocessed.
So.
At this point you've jumped from processed to highly processed to OVERprocessed...
What term will you come up with next? Supercalifragilisticprocessed?
Let's review...
You lack any sort of degree in food sciences...
You're unable to provide any scientifically grounded research on the effects of (insert shock word denoting degree of processing here) processed foods on weight gain...
You're confusing natural products (such as fructose and fat, both of which are found abundantly in unprocessed foods)...
And you're apparently now claiming without coming out and saying it that fortified products (products to which nutrients have been added during processing) are apparently somehow still devoid of nutritional value.
And now you're saying that you accept those premises based on... well, hell, I don't know what it's based on. God knows what the basis is for those beliefs. Perhaps little blue elves?
Now, I don't think that anyone is claiming that all processed foods are benign. Hell, Twinkees are the epitome of processed foods, and they're horrific.
But, you're the only one who is claiming that processed foods are Satan's loin juice and are directly responsible for all obesity in the United States.
It's curious, really...
You're more than willing to take the word of a nutritionist or two, but you're not willing to actually seek out anything factual on the subject that might disprove your pet theory.
That's not scientific. That's Rods of Ra crap.
So, given that, I think it's pretty clear what's bullshit here, and what's not.
But, that's just you, I guess.
Hey, did you know that someone with some sort of degree in something or the other told me that large doses of cyanide cure the ravages of aging?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 24, 2007, 09:49:33 PM
By fructose, I would guess Riley is referring to 'high fructose corn syrup.' I avoid that stuff whenever possible - and sometimes it's not. Corn Flakes is loaded with it! My beloved Corn Flakes, the best dry snack food on earth.
Kellogg's is not the only brand of corn flakes. Be an informed consumer. There's other brands out there, and if your supermarket has a section for smaller "healthier food" companies, look at the cereals in it. If you have Trader Joes, look in there. At last glance at mine, I spotted corn flakes with only a bit of honey for sweetener and no HFC in them, corn flakes that are gluten free, flakes made from blue corn instead to turn your milk blue and horrify people, and flakes made from other heirloom grains even.
Just need to read ingredients!
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 24, 2007, 10:02:09 PM
I may die before the rest of you, but I'll die happy.
Post by: Paddy on September 25, 2007, 07:48:43 AM
A complex (more natural) carb takes longer to digest, so your body doesn't have to deal with a big sugar rush; the glycogen is stored and metabolized more slowly.
'Refined' sugars are those that have been stripped of natural vitamins and minerals (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and some other trace minerals and enzymes). The human body needs these minerals in order to digest sugar. When you eat refined sugars, the body pulls these nutrients from itself (tissue and bone).
This is not a scientific explanation by any means. It is no doubt an oversimplification of the mechanism. Nonetheless, that's what and how it happens. Non-issues like references to the Rods of Ra and food nazis don't change these facts.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 25, 2007, 07:57:24 AM
Quote
At last glance at mine, I spotted corn flakes with only a bit of honey for sweetener
Yeah, but who the f&#* wants to eat that? The cardboard in the box would taste better, even before I sprinkled sugar on the corn flakes. What's for lunch, Manedwolf, plain rice cakes?
This thread is certainly interesting. I'm waiting for RileyMc to give us more sage medical advise, like he did in a previous thread. I told him why Americans are fat, and he still didn't buy it, because I didn't use his favorite term-of-the-day, overprocessed. Jeebus.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 25, 2007, 08:28:31 AM
Quote
'Refined' sugars are those that have been stripped of natural vitamins and minerals (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and some other trace minerals and enzymes). The human body needs these minerals in order to digest sugar. When you eat refined sugars, the body pulls these nutrients from itself (tissue and bone).
The body doesn't need "trace minerals and enzymes" in sugar to digest it. The body converts food sugars and other carbohydrates directly to glucose (blood sugar) without the aid of outside ingredients. Any glucose that isn't burned immediately by cellular activity is stored (i.e. converted to fat) for later use. It has exactly ZERO to do with the "processed" nature of the food and everything to do with the amount of carbohydrates, complex or otherwise, that you ingest.
Quote
Processed foods (mostly carbohydrates) have been chemically altered to increase their shelf life. This changes a complex carb into a simple carb; it removes fiber, healthy oils, vitamins and minerals.
A) They have not been "chemically altered". The ingredients remain the same as if you'd made it in your own kitchen. The only change is the addition of a minute amount of preservative which doesn't "chemically alter" anything about the basic food, it retards the growth of bacteria and mold. The "chemically altered" mantra is the hallmark of Scare-Ya nutrition zealots. Their use of the term indicates an appalling lack of actual knowledge in their supposed field of "expertise."
B) The preserving agents and "processing" have nothing to do with changing carbohydrate states. Cooking does that. Did you know that anything that's not a protein, fat, or and undigestable fiber is technically a carbohydrate? It gets called by all sorts of food terms - sugar, starch, bread, etc. - but it's still a carbohydrate in some form. The simplest carbohydrates (monosaccharides) are sugars like sucrose and fructose. The ladder climbs steadily from there up to the most complex carbohydrates (starches, etc.). You take a simple carbohydrate, sugar, add flour, and place it under intense heat to create a foodstuff loaded with complex carbohydrates, bread.
C) Carbohydrates and "fiber, healthy oils, vitamins and minerals" are mutually exclusive food ingredients. There is no oil in sugar, at least not in it's natual form. Also, any "vitamins and minerals" present in sugar are there as impurities. Pure sugar is straight sucrose. It is a white crystalline material that does not contain any type of oil or trace minerals. That really yummy taste from supposedly "pure and natural" brown sugar is actually a complex mixture of impurities, including really nummy things like sulpher and several carcinogens.
Here's a statement of fact. The intrustion of processed foods is so complete that even in our own home kitchens we cannot avoid simple carbohydrates being converted to polyshaccharides. Oh no! Oh my! It's been "processed" and it did something vewy scawy sounding!!! Oh, did I mention that's a fancy-pants, intentionally misleading way of saying that simple carbs are converted to complex ones by cooking? That's right, COOKING. The very thing you do in your kitchen every day is an "industrial process". Every time you bake a loaf of bread you are converting simple carbohydrates in to disaccharides and polysaccharides. Every time you take a "free range" egg and heat it you are radically altering the protien structure. Every time you salt something you are adding a "chemical preservative." The list is virtually endless.
Here's another statement of fact - Processed carbohydrates are aldehydes or ketones with many hydroxyl groups added. A true statement? Abosolutely. Misleading? You bet. ALL carbohydrates are aldehydes or ketones with many hydroxyl groups added. That is the chemical definition of a carbohydrate. The "processed" part is added to make it sound like Big Food has done something horribly unnatural to your meal. It's an intionally misleading way of being technically correct while preying on an unknowing consumer's worst nightmares.
The terms "processed" and "industrial process" used in conjunction with food is, most often, a blatant scare tactic. It is a nothing term, scary sounding and ominous. It is used to make people think something artifical (and thus dangerous) has been done to their food. It is used in ignorance or outright intentional deceit.
Here... the Wiki entry on Carbohydrates. Not complete, but a decent primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrates
Brad
Post by: wooderson on September 25, 2007, 09:16:53 AM
I had a Galligaskin's sandwich today - it was ok. The bread was so-so compared to the 'boutique sandwich' chains. Good meat, though. Didn't think to ask if they would toast my sandwich.
Post by: Paddy on September 25, 2007, 12:25:45 PM
Quote
Any glucose that isn't burned immediately by cellular activity is stored (i.e. converted to fat) for later use. It has exactly ZERO to do with the "processed" nature of the food and everything to do with the amount of carbohydrates, complex or otherwise, that you ingest.
Wrong. All carbohydrates are not equal. Those with a higher glycemic index (simple carbs from processed, refined foods) will release sugars faster than the body can metabolize. Insulin then converts these sugars to fat. Lower glycemic index foods (complex carbs from fruits and vegetables, whole grains, even pasta) release sugars more slowly; they don't get stored as fat.
Quote
Oh, did I mention that's a fancy-pants, intentionally misleading way of saying that simple carbs are converted to complex ones by cooking? That's right, COOKING. The very thing you do in your kitchen every day is an "industrial process". Every time you bake a loaf of bread you are converting simple carbohydrates in to disaccharides and polysaccharides.
No. A loaf of bread made with refined white flour is a much simpler carb than a loaf of bread made with whole grains. The simpler carbs convert to sugar faster and the excess sugar is stored as fat.
Quote
The terms "processed" and "industrial process" used in conjunction with food is, most often, a blatant scare tactic.
No, Brad, foods actually are processed. Nutrients are stripped away and artificial ingredients are added.
Quote
It is a nothing term, scary sounding and ominous.
Apparently to you it is.
Quote
It is used to make people think something artifical (and thus dangerous) has been done to their food. It is used in ignorance or outright intentional deceit.
It's a conspiracy. OK.
All your other remarks about
Quote
'The "chemically altered" mantra is the hallmark of Scare-Ya nutrition zealots.
andQuote
Oh no! Oh my! It's been "processed" and it did something vewy scawy sounding!!!
are intended to ridicule, but they really just add to the 'My God, they're trying to take away our Cheetos'
hysteria.
The rest of your narrative is made up of sentences cribbed from various sites merely to look impressive, and doesn't support your conclusions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 25, 2007, 12:31:29 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 25, 2007, 01:05:05 PM
Quote
Wrong. All carbohydrates are not equal. Those with a higher glycemic index
A nutri-mercial catch phrase only ten words into the response. You pretty much lost me right there.
Quote
Those with a higher glycemic index (simple carbs from processed, refined foods) will release sugars faster than the body can metabolize. Insulin then converts these sugars to fat. Lower glycemic index foods (complex carbs from fruits and vegetables, whole grains, even pasta) release sugars more slowly; they don't get stored as fat.
First, carbohydrates don't "release" sugars, they are converted to sugar. Second, I never contended anything except that an excess glucose in the bloodstream is converted to, and stored as, fat. The source and speed of conversion is only relevent in the fact that simple carbs spike your blood sugar levels hard while more complex carbs have a more sustained moderate effect on levels. Your insulin production may vary widely during the day to compensate for different conversion rates, but in the end if you have any excess of glucose from any source it gets coverted to fat.
Quote
No. A loaf of bread made with refined white flour is a much simpler carb than a loaf of bread made with whole grains. The simpler carbs convert to sugar faster and the excess sugar is stored as fat.
Agronomy lesson... The part of the seed containing all the carbohydrates is a starch called the endosperm. Both wheat and white flour contain the endosperm. White flour has had the bran and germ coats removed. The lightening process may affect the color and certain nutrients, but it doesn't change the levels or kinds of starches in the flour. In other words, the refining process for white flour doesn't change the carbohydrate content one iota.
Quote
No, Brad, foods actually are processed. Nutrients are stripped away and artificial ingredients are added.
Okay, how? And I want it in mechanical and chemical language, not infomercial-ese. There is this hysteria about "processing" but no one has yet supplied any kind of response as to what "processing" actually means.
Quote
The rest of your narrative is made up of sentences cribbed from various sites merely to look impressive,
Accusations demand proof. Links?
Riley, you need to know that I have done an extensive self-study into nutritional needs as they relate to blood sugar (which is directly related to carbs, carb types, and how they are processed by the body). Along with my own nutritional needs my former father-in-law was a long-time insulin dependent diabetic. I made it a point to make sure I had every ounce of information in relation to his condition. I extended that research when my own health began to decline from weight-related issues.
Brad
Post by: Paddy on September 25, 2007, 02:20:50 PM
Here are a couple of non 'nutri-mercial' links on the glycemic index:
The Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University (scroll down to 'Obesity' which says, in part
Quote
This may explain why 15 out of 16 published studies found that the consumption of low-glycemic index foods delayed the return of hunger, decreased subsequent food intake, and increased satiety (feeling full) when compared to high-glycemic index foods (14). The results of several small short-term trials (1-4 months) suggest that low-glycemic load diets result in significantly more weight or fat loss than high-glycemic load diets (15-17).
Harvard School of Public Health
Quote
One of the most important factors that determine a food's glycemic index is how highly processed its carbohydrates are. Processing carbohydrates removes the fiber-rich outer bran and the vitamin- and mineral-rich inner germ, leaving mostly the starchy endosperm.
Published medical study on the glycemic index of foods and body weight regulation
Dietary glycemic index and the regulation of body weight.
and another:
Association Between Dietary Carbohydrates and Body Weight.
There is increasing evidence of a relationship between a food's glycemic index and its influence on weight. In any event, it can't be ignored. That's what I mean by 'all carbs are not equal'.
Post by: Paddy on September 25, 2007, 03:10:34 PM
And, there is the addictive nature of sugar and cravings for carbs.
Two more reasons why processed foods cause obesity.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 25, 2007, 04:28:15 PM
Post by: K Frame on September 25, 2007, 04:36:51 PM
OK, that signature is ban-worthy. It's not as ugly as some people's self-portrait avatars, but still...
Actually, I'm inclined to agree...
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 26, 2007, 09:24:25 AM
Quote
There is increasing evidence of a relationship between a food's glycemic index and its influence on weight.
I almost laughed out loud when I read that. "Glycemic index" is a late-comer $64,000 term for what sensible eaters have known for decades. It's almost as much of a revelation as the CSPI announcement a few years back that "Mexican food is high in fat."
I guess I missed something after I logged off last night. What's with the sig line Mike and fistful are talking about?
Brad
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 26, 2007, 09:36:26 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 26, 2007, 09:50:55 AM
This was the sig:
"I should have listened to Riley and laid off the junkfood. Now they call me Halfton."
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 26, 2007, 09:58:34 AM
If you recall I already clearly stated that I was not debating the way different carbs are converted to glucose.
I consider the term "carbs" to be about as descriptive as the term "processing." It is a broad generalization encompassing an almost unlimited combination of more specific items and issues. The type and quantity of "carbs" in a specific food is unique to that food. The way the body processes it is unique to a particular type of carbohydrate.
Ugh on the sig. I remember that guy from Discovery Channel. If I recall, they got him down to "only" 600 or so pounds. I remember him having a hissy fit about his weight being "genetic", then they showed what he ate (or that he berated his wife into cooking) on a daily basis. Genetic, my lilly white rear end! The guy was overweight because he kept shoveling food down his piehole.
Brad
Post by: Paddy on September 26, 2007, 10:35:15 AM
Quote
I consider the term "carbs" to be about as descriptive as the term "processing." It is a broad generalization encompassing an almost unlimited combination of more specific items and issues. The type and quantity of "carbs" in a specific food is unique to that food. The way the body processes it is unique to a particular type of carbohydrate.
Agreed. Both are so general as to mean different things to different people.
A question for you. Given that obesity is so prevalent in industrialized countries, what would postulate is the cause? I agree that it's because they eat too much, but that's not an answer. Eating too much is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem(s). Why do obese people eat too much?
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 26, 2007, 11:36:45 AM
Quote
I agree that it's because they eat too much, but that's not an answer. Eating too much is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem(s). Why do obese people eat too much?
Interesting conundrum.
Personally I think that the reason for a person's nutrional (mis)behavior are as unique as the individual in question.
As a society we have more free time than ever. We spend that time doing things we enjoy, or at least can reasonably afford to enjoy. We're hard-wired to enjoy food as a matter of survival. More than that, we are hard-wired to enjoy the foods that ensure the greates short-term energy and long-term survivability, namely sugars, proteins, and fats. Unfortunately, those foods also tend to be the most calorie-concentrated. As a result we tend to ingest far more than is necessary.
As a society we are also have become accustomed to convenience. The desire for convenience usually results in someone developing a service to mee the perceived need. In the case of the food provider industry, those providers will try and serve the most desired items. Now we're back to our hard-wired desire for foods that are high in sugars, fats, and proteins. Now throw in the issue of competition and you get the increased portion sizes to make the consumer feel they are getting more for their money. Now throw in our societal conditioning condition to either "clean up your plate" or "eat it all to get my money's worth" and you have a recipe for extreme nutritional overindulgence.
We are also a society that has taken the "work smarter, not harder" concept to heart. Unfortunately we've come up with an endless variety of ways to accomplish things with the least amount of physical effort, including such mundane things as everyday domestic and travel needs. The fact that there is a multi-billion dollar entire industry built around people paying to exercise is proof of that.
So, back to the question of why. My take on it? In general we have become a society of "enjoyers". We enjoy punching buttons instead of having to physically work. We enjoy being able to call up someone and have a couple of supreme pizzas and a 3 liter soda delivered to our door instead of going to the kitchen and making something from scratch. We enjoy being able to drive that 10 blocks to work instead of walking or biking there. We enjoy that evening of sitting in front of the tube watching History Channel, munching on pizza and sipping a beer or soda, instead of continuing to work into the evening just to meet basic living needs. Unfortunately we enjoy it so much that the net effect is we desire more than we require. Since we can afford it, both in time and money, we do it because it feels good. And we've done it for enough generations that it has become the norm rather than the exception. The result? An entire population of slightly-to-significantly overweight people.
In terms of the morbidly obese I think even they are an execption to the general problem of societal obesity. They are the few where the wires haven't just crossed, they've been plugged into the wrong jacks. Their sense of need has completely overpowered all levels of caution or common sense. Most people will do what's needed when faced with a situation of "change habits or die". I think those who are morbidly obese lack the ability to force themselves to change. The issue could be physiological, psychological, societal, or a combination of all three, but these folks lack whatever it takes to tell themselves "No."
It really makes me wonder when these people will find ways to get other people to meet their perceived "needs" whey they, themselves, become physically unable to do so. The ultimate astonishment is that there are people out there who will go along with it. They willingly assist someone so grossly obese they can't care for their own daily hygiene needs to continue their cycle of self-destruction. Sometimes they even accelerate it. Such is the case of the guy above, who's wife would cook him whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it. As a result he ended up over a thousand pounds! He was so physically limited he couldn't roll over or sit up to use any kind of toilet apparates. He had to urinate and defecate on himself then rely on someone else to clean it up. Yet she still bought or made him everything he wanted, putting it right in front of him and watching him slop it down.
Brad
Post by: charby on September 27, 2007, 07:47:20 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 07:56:30 AM
Anyway, so it's the easy availability of large portions of cheap, high fat, high sugar foods that is the reason for the 'outbreak' of obesity? This, combined with a lazy exercise deficient lifestyle due to modern conveniences?
To test that hypothesis, I suggest a comparison of those conditions with similar conditions of the past, before any significant 'processing' was done to foods. The purpose is to exclude modern 'processing' as the culprit.
There are people in the past who had no restrictions on food intake. They had serfs to bring it and servants to cook and serve it. Price was no object. They could eat as much as they wanted whenever they wanted.
Pharoahs and their families and households, the Roman elite, Royal families in Europe and elsewhere, all of these people would qualify as having no limits on food intake. Then came the Dark Ages (not much recorded there) and into the Renaissance. More royalty with virtually no restrictions.
Were they all obese? I don't know, but I'll try to research it.
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 27, 2007, 08:52:23 AM
Quote
There are people in the past who had no restrictions on food intake. They had serfs to bring it and servants to cook and serve it. Price was no object. They could eat as much as they wanted whenever they wanted.
...
Were they all obese? I don't know, but I'll try to research it.
...
Were they all obese? I don't know, but I'll try to research it.
I think you'll find that the ruling classes, the ones who sat on their behinds all day consuming the richer foods available to them in almost endless quantities, tended toward avoirdupois. The ones who did the serving did not.
Brad
Post by: mtnbkr on September 27, 2007, 10:02:53 AM
Quote
I think you'll find that the ruling classes, the ones who sat on their behinds all day consuming the richer foods available to them in almost endless quantities, tended toward avoirdupois. The ones who did the serving did not.
Brad
Brad
Merely look at the artwork of the time. People with money were shown to be heavy. The standard of beauty of the time was larger than today. Gout was known as a rich man's disease because only the rich could afford to eat that way.
Chris
Post by: Joe Demko on September 27, 2007, 11:37:29 AM
Maybe more what you are looking for in terms of corpulent rich people can be found in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A certain amount of fleshiness was considered attractive at the time because it showed that you were wealthy enough to eat well and that you didn't do hard physical work like a common laborer.
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 04:08:17 PM
Sounds like a codeword. 'The mummy has pendulous breasts'
'John has a long mustache'
Post by: 280plus on September 27, 2007, 04:40:49 PM
FWIW, too damn expensive if you ask me.
Post by: Phyphor on September 27, 2007, 04:47:42 PM
Post by: 280plus on September 27, 2007, 04:55:33 PM
Post by: Firethorn on September 27, 2007, 06:07:43 PM
let's beat it!!!!
Hey, at least it'd be good exercise!
I'll agree with the weight problem being a symptom of our very industry:
1. Work no longer requires physical labor for the majority of jobs
2. Transportation no longer requires even the effort of staying on a horse
3. Even play is before a screen today, instead of running around yards.
So our average physical activity level is lower than it's ever been.
4. Food, relative to income, is very low in cost compared to the past*
5. Food is available with ever increasing amounts of processing
6. Fat was sold as leading to more fat - actual studies have shown that simple sugars lead more to fat than eating fat. The simpler the more pronounced the effect. Due to subsidies companies use high fructose corn syrup, which is even simpler than sugar.
7. Very frequently sugars and fats are added to food to make it taste better and cover up the fact that it's not fresh
So we're eating more calories of simpler sugars. Simpler sugars cause a spike in glucose levels in the blood, triggering fat storage mechanisms - the more complex the sugar, all the way up into barely-digestible just short of indigestible fiber, the longer it takes to break down, the less pronounced the spike, the stabler your metabolism tends to be, the fewer hunger pangs you experience, and without those spikes or excessive eating due to hunger pangs, you're not going to put on the weight like you would if you're eating lots of simple sugars.
Combine this with a relative tolerance and ability to accommodate the fatties and we have issues. After a certain point these people can't move for themselves - historically this has usually resulted in the problem correcting itself because as the person became fatter, they could no longer get food(that was fairly expensive, or at least labor intensive to obtain), resulting in at least a stabilization.
I've seen people state that after a certain point these people need enablers to keep gaining weight - once they can no longer move to get food themselves they have to have somebody who brings it too them. Otherwise they eventually get so fat they can't get food, whether that be entering the kitchen or going to a restaurant or grocery store. While there would indeed be problems with nutrition - getting the proper vitamins and such, they are at least not going to gain any more weight. Indeed, as they lose weight they should eventually regain mobility. Then they can get food again.
*Yes, I know a number of staples have increased relatively recently, but work with me. How many poor actually have to worry about putting food on the table other than problems with them not being able to cook for themselves?
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 06:14:25 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on September 28, 2007, 06:32:41 AM
Exactly. Processed food causes obesity.
And non-processed food doesn't? Might want to be careful with the absolute statements...
Quote from: firethorn
Simpler sugars cause a spike in glucose levels in the blood, triggering fat storage mechanisms
Partially true, but a little misleading. It's an excess of glucose in the bloodstream that causes it. The fructose in an orange will trigger the same spike as the sucrose in plain table sugar. It's too much of either that's the culprit, not the food item itself. Complex carbs may not elevate glucose levels as fast, but they keep that elevated level for a far longer period of time. Eating more than the body can process triggers the "fat storage mechanism" regardless of carb type.
The "simple carb" argument also fails on one key point - if the fat is stored from a quick spike in blood sugar, that means the fat is burned for energy once the blood sugar levels return to normal. With complex carbs the blood glucose levels may not spike as hard, but the elevated levels extend for a longer period of time. The result? For a given amount of calories, and averaged over time time, the net effect is the same. In simpler terms, if you consume more calories than your body needs it stores it as fat. Weight gain. Eat less than your body needs and it will burn stored fat to make up the shortfall. Weight loss. Simple biophysics.
Does that mean you could live on a diet of pure suger? No. The body needs a much more complex mix of nutrients - carbs, proteins, fats, and trace elements. However, that doesn't change the fact that "processed" foods are not a root cause. We like to think they are to alleviate us from any personal responsibility for our well-being (i.e. weight). In other words, we like blaming "processed" foods for our weight troubles instead of acknowleding that we create our own problems with poor diet and lack of exercise.
Brad
Post by: mtnbkr on September 28, 2007, 06:53:38 AM
Chris