Ulcers

[mungkiman]

 

 

I meant to add, that I feel bad that there is so much "fat shaming" in the culture. A tremendous amount of misunderstanding, hence my argument throughout the thread about the causes of obesity NOT always being a moral cause (lack of responsibility). 

 

Why do you think the CFO and COO of McDonalds are slender? Education, willpower, genetics, or something else?

 

 

I don't even know the names of who you are referring to, let alone anything about their weight, education, or psychology. I couldn't possibly guess about your question. 

 

 

All you have to know is that they are slender, have unlimited access to their product, and shouldn't be considered immune to science and "flavor."

 

What say you?

[Jim Naseum]

"Why do you think the CFO and COO of McDonalds are slender? Education, willpower, genetics, or something else?"

-----------

With nearly no information, I'd say it was due to their wealth. The richer you are, the better (quality of nutrition) food you can afford to eat. 

 

From an UK Study:

Anna Soubry, the Public Health Minister, has been getting into trouble for stating the bleeding obvious.

“You can almost now tell somebody’s background by their weight,” she said. “Obviously, not everybody who is overweight comes from deprived backgrounds but that’s where the propensity lies. It is a heartbreaking fact that people who are some of the most deprived in our society are living on an inadequate diet. But this time it’s an abundance of bad food.”

Brutal as it sounds, she's right. Over the last century – for the first time in history – an odd phenomenon has emerged in developed societies: the richer you are, the more likely you are to be thin. Wallis Simpson nailed the phenomenon several generations ago, when she said, "You can never be too rich or too thin."

George Orwell noticed a related phenomenon in 1937, in The Road to Wigan Pier:

"The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food.  A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't… When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull, wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let's have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream!"

------------

[Jim Naseum]

And from this side of the Atlantic, the same basic idea: 

Quote

If you live in ZIP code 10021, the odds are that you don’t have diabetes, that no one in your family has diabetes and that you don’t know anyone who has diabetes. In your neighborhood, 1 percent or less of the population has this affliction. The odds are that you are wealthy or rich or very rich, and there is even a decent chance that you are, by the use of your money and power, partly responsible for people in some other place suffering and dying from this monster killer-maimer disease.

That some other place is close by: It’s the next ZIP code immediately north of you, beginning on the other side of 96th Street. There, the odds are good that you have diabetes or that someone in your family has it. In Spanish Harlem, 16 percent of your neighbors will also have the disease.

Altogether, some 800,000 New Yorkers have diabetes, thus making the Big Apple the financial and disease capital of the United States. In percentages of the population who suffer from this killer, Gotham outranks Los Angeles and Chicago. It should be a matter of special pride to the idiot males who live for the athletic rivalry between here and Beantown that the New York diabetes rate is double that of Boston.

We know this and much more courtesy of The New York Times. The newspaper’s huge, four-part diabetes series wipes out the paper’s recent sins and should make us readers tolerant of its tardiness in printing stories which have appeared elsewhere two or three days earlier. The Times deserves a bushel full of those journalistic rewards it lives for on this one. It attacks the story medically, socially and economically, but it doesn’t venture into the political arrangements which doom millions to die from diabetes, which blinds, causes the loss of toes, feet and legs, inflicts stroke, heart attack, infections and kidney failure, and the excruciating pain of various kinds of neuropathy.

In the old days, you could tell the rich people because they were fat—and, we suppose, a lot of them got diabetes. Now rich people are mostly thin; they exercise a lot and they don’t get diabetes. The farther you are down the income tables, the more likely you are to suffer from the disease, which is going to kill upwards of 15 percent of New York City’s residents. Millions we would think of as middle class die of it as well.

[mungkiman]

"Why do you think the CFO and COO of McDonalds are slender? Education, willpower, genetics, or something else?"

-----------

With nearly no information, I'd say it was due to their wealth. The richer you are, the better (quality of nutrition) food you can afford to eat. 

 

There are plenty of fat rich people. They can afford more food, real butter, lobster, etc. Whatever they want. Are rich people simply immune to the allure of shitty food, or are you going to suggest that wealthy people might also be able to afford better education?

[Jim Naseum]

 

"Why do you think the CFO and COO of McDonalds are slender? Education, willpower, genetics, or something else?"

-----------

With nearly no information, I'd say it was due to their wealth. The richer you are, the better (quality of nutrition) food you can afford to eat. 

 

There are plenty of fat rich people. They can afford more food, real butter, lobster, etc. Whatever they want. Are rich people simply immune to the allure of shitty food, or are you going to suggest that wealthy people might also be able to afford better education?

 

 

So, you didn't read the two posts? They explained the phenomenon of "thin and rich" pretty clearly. I won't retype it here. 

 

What you asked was about two executives of McDonalds. I said it wasn't enough information to understand why they are slender, but you insisted. So, I did what any intelligent person would do, I played the odds. Odds are they are rich, and since wealth is now a leading indicator for low BMI, I made that bet.

 

In spite of this from yesterday....

Illusory superiority complex, much?

 

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with my answer to your question. Owing to all your previous hostility, I wasn't inclined to get involved in a detailed discussion, but I did, and I did it politely.  

[mungkiman]

And from this side of the Atlantic, the same basic idea: 

Quote

If you live in ZIP code 10021, the odds are that you don’t have diabetes, that no one in your family has diabetes and that you don’t know anyone who has diabetes. In your neighborhood, 1 percent or less of the population has this affliction. The odds are that you are wealthy or rich or very rich, and there is even a decent chance that you are, by the use of your money and power, partly responsible for people in some other place suffering and dying from this monster killer-maimer disease.

That some other place is close by: It’s the next ZIP code immediately north of you, beginning on the other side of 96th Street. There, the odds are good that you have diabetes or that someone in your family has it. In Spanish Harlem, 16 percent of your neighbors will also have the disease.

Altogether, some 800,000 New Yorkers have diabetes, thus making the Big Apple the financial and disease capital of the United States. In percentages of the population who suffer from this killer, Gotham outranks Los Angeles and Chicago. It should be a matter of special pride to the idiot males who live for the athletic rivalry between here and Beantown that the New York diabetes rate is double that of Boston.

We know this and much more courtesy of The New York Times. The newspaper’s huge, four-part diabetes series wipes out the paper’s recent sins and should make us readers tolerant of its tardiness in printing stories which have appeared elsewhere two or three days earlier. The Times deserves a bushel full of those journalistic rewards it lives for on this one. It attacks the story medically, socially and economically, but it doesn’t venture into the political arrangements which doom millions to die from diabetes, which blinds, causes the loss of toes, feet and legs, inflicts stroke, heart attack, infections and kidney failure, and the excruciating pain of various kinds of neuropathy.

In the old days, you could tell the rich people because they were fat—and, we suppose, a lot of them got diabetes. Now rich people are mostly thin; they exercise a lot and they don’t get diabetes. The farther you are down the income tables, the more likely you are to suffer from the disease, which is going to kill upwards of 15 percent of New York City’s residents. Millions we would think of as middle class die of it as well.

 

Are you now suggesting the issue has little to do with salt, which we all can afford, and the science of addictive food additives? I certainly know poor people that live on beans, rice, carrots and brown bread, instead of the dollar menu.

 

To me, they demonstrate nutritional education, willpower, and personal responsibility; all of which are FREE.

[mungkiman]

 

 

"Why do you think the CFO and COO of McDonalds are slender? Education, willpower, genetics, or something else?"

-----------

With nearly no information, I'd say it was due to their wealth. The richer you are, the better (quality of nutrition) food you can afford to eat. 

 

There are plenty of fat rich people. They can afford more food, real butter, lobster, etc. Whatever they want. Are rich people simply immune to the allure of shitty food, or are you going to suggest that wealthy people might also be able to afford better education?

 

 

So, you didn't read the two posts? They explained the phenomenon of "thin and rich" pretty clearly. I won't retype it here. 

 

What you asked was about two executives of McDonalds. I said it wasn't enough information to understand why they are slender, but you insisted. So, I did what any intelligent person would do, I played the odds. Odds are they are rich, and since wealth is now a leading indicator for low BMI, I made that bet. 

 

You didn't answer my last question, and have now switched your own premise. 

[mungkiman]

What you people just don't get is that elites enjoy being recognized for their intelligence. What you imagine is a deep insult, is just music to our ears.

 

 

It was OTHER posters heralding my superior intelligence before I posted a word.

 

 

Illusory superiority complex, much?

 

Context is everything.

Edited January 27, 2016 by mungkiman

[mungkiman]

 

I just thought you missed at least one possible emotion, as well as my 2nd joke.

 

I was waiting for this, too. 

 

 

Only because I put it in quotes, Thanks for your time.

[Jim Naseum]

And from this side of the Atlantic, the same basic idea:

Quote

If you live in ZIP code 10021, the odds are that you don’t have diabetes, that no one in your family has diabetes and that you don’t know anyone who has diabetes. In your neighborhood, 1 percent or less of the population has this affliction. The odds are that you are wealthy or rich or very rich, and there is even a decent chance that you are, by the use of your money and power, partly responsible for people in some other place suffering and dying from this monster killer-maimer disease.

That some other place is close by: It’s the next ZIP code immediately north of you, beginning on the other side of 96th Street. There, the odds are good that you have diabetes or that someone in your family has it. In Spanish Harlem, 16 percent of your neighbors will also have the disease.

Altogether, some 800,000 New Yorkers have diabetes, thus making the Big Apple the financial and disease capital of the United States. In percentages of the population who suffer from this killer, Gotham outranks Los Angeles and Chicago. It should be a matter of special pride to the idiot males who live for the athletic rivalry between here and Beantown that the New York diabetes rate is double that of Boston.

We know this and much more courtesy of The New York Times. The newspaper’s huge, four-part diabetes series wipes out the paper’s recent sins and should make us readers tolerant of its tardiness in printing stories which have appeared elsewhere two or three days earlier. The Times deserves a bushel full of those journalistic rewards it lives for on this one. It attacks the story medically, socially and economically, but it doesn’t venture into the political arrangements which doom millions to die from diabetes, which blinds, causes the loss of toes, feet and legs, inflicts stroke, heart attack, infections and kidney failure, and the excruciating pain of various kinds of neuropathy.

In the old days, you could tell the rich people because they were fat—and, we suppose, a lot of them got diabetes. Now rich people are mostly thin; they exercise a lot and they don’t get diabetes. The farther you are down the income tables, the more likely you are to suffer from the disease, which is going to kill upwards of 15 percent of New York City’s residents. Millions we would think of as middle class die of it as well.

Are you now suggesting the issue has little to do with salt, which we all can afford, and the science of addictive food additives? I certainly know poor people that live on beans, rice, carrots and brown bread, instead of the dollar menu.

To me, they demonstrate nutritional education, willpower, and personal responsibility; all of which are FREE.

No. I'm just answering the question which was asked. Without more information about the TWO individuals, their wealth is a likely reason for being slender.

Plenty of science supports that contention.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[oscarsear]

Walk a mile in your shoes............   You will burn roughly the same calories walking a mile as you will running a mile because you will have done a'miles' worth of work.  You will not get the same cardio, etc........  but you will burn the calories in a way that is relatively pleasant and easy on the body.  You do not have to obnoxiously exert yourself to get into an exercise program.  Once you have walked a mile and burned a miles worth of calories - do not eat 2 miles worth of food.  Calories burned and not replaced results in (wait for it) weight loss.  An out of shape person will lose lots of weight quickly because they are out of condition.  Their bodies are inefficient and will burn excess calories for the given workload.  (This is why so many diet companies hawk the notion that new customers will 'lose 5 pounds' in the 1st 10 days.)

 

Every journey begins with a single step.  Not gonna discount any medical findings nor excuse our unscrupulous food industry.  I am gonna look a YOU and find faith that YOU can understand the need and will be smart enough to comprehend the values to be gained.  Take a lot of pride in every goal achieved.  If you fall down, get up and get back to it.  It will not be easy nor fast.  It requires determination, commitment and a complete reworking of lifestyle.  But you are not alone and there is a TON of help.

 

You can revel in adopting enumerable explanations and rationalize being fat in many ways.  But your life will be limited, less happy, less successful, much less healthy and you will waste a bunch of $$$$$.  Or start walking and stop eating crap and become active, alert and healthy.  

[joshnich]

Very interesting discussion. I would tend to agree with most of what jo is asserting - there is something more at play here than the lack of will power. The skyrocketing rates of obesity should worry everyone. If you look at the obesity rates by city the best in the country is Boulder Co with 12.4% obesity rate. THE ONLY CITY IN THE COUNTY BELOW 15% !!. I simply cannot believe that will power is the issue. I do disagree with Jo's assertions regarding rich people. Yes more affluent areas have lower rates of obesity but I think that the correlation of lower rates of obesity is greater with high rates of education than it is with income. The Boston versus NY is just one example. Boston is one of the most educated cities in the US.

Not exactly sure what that changes. I for one travel around the country a great deal and in fact spend a lot of time in Chicago, St Louis, Boston, and parts of Virginia and Ohio. I can tell you that when I am in most of those places ( Boston Excluded)  I feel like a bicycle racer compared to what I see walking around - and believe me I could stand to lose a few pounds! But I also notice the absolute lack of understanding of what and how much to eat. One short example. My wife and I were in Cincinnati last summer and I decided to go to a reds game and went on line and purchased  tickets. Turns out that I bought seats in the club area that featured an all you can eat club room. There was absolutely nothing in this pretty big cafeteria type set up that either I or my wife would even consider eating. Even the salads were loaded with gross dressings and the fresh fruit had caramel sauce! Needless to say it was a real eye opener. I also tend to disagree with Jo regarding making food bland to make it it less desirable. I think I eat very healthy food. I keep portions small and do not eat processed food. But I enjoy cooking and I enjoy seasoning and I like having food that tastes good!

I have also noticed that in the cities I travel to, that the plates are the size of what I consider a serving platter! What ever happened to 9" dinner plates!?!?! These new enormous plates are a big part of the issue. They will not even fit into my kitchen cabinets!

 

Josh

[Wolfbane]

One big contributor to the epidemic of overweight people is the consumption of large amounts of high fructose corn syrup. The commercial use of this product started with soft drinks and has spread to prepared foods. Even most commercial made ketchup has supplanted sugar with HFCS.

 

It has me reading the labeled ingredients of everthing I buy at the grocery store. 

[joshnich]

http://michaelpollan.com/books/in-defense-of-food/

[Jim Naseum]

Walk a mile in your shoes............   You will burn roughly the same calories walking a mile as you will running a mile because you will have done a'miles' worth of work.  You will not get the same cardio, etc........  but you will burn the calories in a way that is relatively pleasant and easy on the body.  You do not have to obnoxiously exert yourself to get into an exercise program.  Once you have walked a mile and burned a miles worth of calories - do not eat 2 miles worth of food.  Calories burned and not replaced results in (wait for it) weight loss.  An out of shape person will lose lots of weight quickly because they are out of condition.  Their bodies are inefficient and will burn excess calories for the given workload.  (This is why so many diet companies hawk the notion that new customers will 'lose 5 pounds' in the 1st 10 days.)

 

Every journey begins with a single step.  Not gonna discount any medical findings nor excuse our unscrupulous food industry.  I am gonna look a YOU and find faith that YOU can understand the need and will be smart enough to comprehend the values to be gained.  Take a lot of pride in every goal achieved.  If you fall down, get up and get back to it.  It will not be easy nor fast.  It requires determination, commitment and a complete reworking of lifestyle.  But you are not alone and there is a TON of help.

 

You can revel in adopting enumerable explanations and rationalize being fat in many ways.  But your life will be limited, less happy, less successful, much less healthy and you will waste a bunch of $$$$$.  Or start walking and stop eating crap and become active, alert and healthy.  

 

The good advice is exercise and eating better. Of course, 

 

What's I object to in your view is making obese people morally inferior because of all the lacking virtue you ascribe to them. They are not stupid, lazy, lacking in commitment, lacking in responsibility. This sentiment that they are a moral failure is simply going against all the science of obesity. All of it. 

 

I'll continue to advise anyone interested to look at the science. Many of the links I've already posted are a good start. 

[Jim Naseum]

Wealth and obesity are inversely proportional - - by scientific study. It's for two reasons: the wealthy have better opportunities for high quality food, and they have built a cohesive culture that "thin is in." By comparison, the poor are surrounded by low cost junk food, chemical manufactured food, and they suffer a great deal of economic insecurity making food a kind of fall back escape from reality. 

 

I am not talking about individuals and anecdotes. Every one is going to know a fat rich person and a skinny poor one. I am talking about STATISTICS which is the basis of all the science. Statistically, the rich will be thinner than the poor. And the causes are understood. 

 

In terms of anecdotes, here's mine: I find that to stay with almost exclusively a plant based diet, bland, fresh, simple, allows me to stay OUT OF the "food culture." I want no part of restaurants, recipes, cook books, TV shows about cooking, food fads, and other phenomena where food is a form of pleasure and entertainment. The reason is that once I get into it, it's hard to escape it again and get back to the "food for fuel" concept. When I promote that idea, I'm really just saying, "Hey, this is what worked for me." 

 

I recently experimented on my self as follows. I do not eat sugar as a rule. After reading claims that sugar promoted eating more, I wanted to see if true. I began eating about 45g of extra sugary stuff a day. Like a rich yogurt or peanut butter. I didn't change anything else. Well, within a few days, I could feel it happening. I wanted more of everything. Not more sugar, more of everything. It was increasing my appetite. Within 10 days, I had gained 5 pounds and that's when I called off the experiment. For the next TWO weeks, I was really craving both more sugar and more food, and it was hard to come back down to the simple diet. 

 

No, that's not a scientific control. It's just an observation so that I could have first hand experience. I think sugar is a human toxin. And, everywhere you look, there is another sugar delivery mechanism. Sugar appears everywhere, even where it has no business. It's cheap as heck for manufacturers and it makes you want to consume more food. What's not to love for them?

 

Good luck. And remember, every year you get older it becomes hard and harder to lose weight.

 

Lots of good posts here. 

Edited January 28, 2016 by jo56steph74