Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2010, 07:36 AM
 
191 posts, read 459,305 times
Reputation: 214

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by annika08 View Post
Doctors and health reports have been telling people it's wise to cut back on red meat for some time now. No new news.

The individual should make the decision to change their eating habits if they're bad, not society. If they choose to kill themselves on fatty foods, let them.
I agree with this point except for two things that bother me. First, I should not be charged the same insurance rate as someone who chooses to eat in a way that they know will cause long term health problems. There should be a surcharge, just like if you smoke. (Again, I am talking about someone with a BMI of 35 or over, not someone who has some junk in the trunk).

Also, what about people who are parents and choose this lifestyle for their children as well? I am a middle school teacher. I cannot tell you how hard it is for kids who are overweight. They are picked on mercilessly and it is embarrassing to them if they come up the stairs and break a sweat or when they have to take PE.

I am not saying there should be legislation, however, I see nothing wrong with putting the PC bullcrap aside and attacking this problem for what it is. As a society we seem to shy away from speaking honestly about this problem because we might hurt someone's feelings or because we may perceived as prejudiced. It has nothing to do with that. This is not an issue concerning what is and isn't attractive, but rather what is and isn't healthy.

We have no problem saying openly that anorexia is unhealthy, why can't we say that being obese is unhealthy as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2010, 09:01 AM
 
5,936 posts, read 4,721,579 times
Reputation: 4633
I don't eat "much" meat mainly due to the cost. I can't recall the last time I ate a steak or a hamburger. Most meat in my meals are of the poultry variety. If I make meatballs, they are homemade using ground turkey breast (prefer the taste).

After having held my weight steady for 9 months after losing about 25% of my weight, I think how much we eat has as much importance on what we are eating. I can eat more fruit and veggies if I feel the need to munch and little to no weight (and still feel good). But, if I replace that with cookies and chips, it is a different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 09:19 AM
 
25 posts, read 34,992 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/health/28brod.html

I've got lots more studies, and all of them agree. Diets high in red meat, mean you face a high probability of a lower life span, cardiovascular health issues, and an overall diminished life experience.

As I said, in three weeks, lowering my red meat intake has dropped 10lbs off of my body. Not that I need to loose a lot of weight, I'm quite healthy, (6'4", 210lbs before, 200 now) although the BMI says I should weigh 170, which is nuts, I'd be a stick.
"A question that arises from observational studies like this one is whether meat is in fact a hazard or whether other factors associated with meat-eating are the real culprits in raising death rates. The subjects in the study who ate the most red meat had other less-than-healthful habits. They were more likely to smoke, weigh more for their height, and consume more calories and more total fat and saturated fat. They also ate less fruits, vegetables and fiber; took fewer vitamin supplements; and were less physically active."

This is exactly what I was referring to.

Now, I know the article in the next paragraph says the researchers "controlled" for these variables, but i'm extremely skeptical of the "red meat = lower life expectancy + cancer" conclusion when people who eat higher amounts of red meat usually are the ones who smoke more, drink more, work out less, eat less fruit/veggies, etc.

If someone can explain how these things can be adequately controlled for, then i'd appreciate it. Otherwise, i'm very leery of believing in the findings of studies such as this one.

Again, IMO it is your overall diet and execise regime along with other lifestyle habits such as smoking, drinking, etc, that play a higher role in determining whether you are living a 'healthy' lifestyle.

Keep in mind, researchers have also gone back and forth over the decades regarding whether it's healthy to eat whole eggs. In general I think dietary fat gets a bad rap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 09:23 AM
 
27 posts, read 14,855 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I have recently changed my diet. I have ruled out red meat of any kind, with the exception of one day a week.

Now, before I start getting called a Marxist, I don't want to mandate that everyone eats healthy. Its a free country, and if you want to kill yourself by eating steak every night, so be it.

My inspiration for changing my diet, came from Clint Eastwood. I watched his biography the other day, and he was asked what the secret to his longevity was. (Come on, the man is in his 80's, and still going strong, and looks great) He said part of it was exercise, but the rest was that he doesn't eat red meat, hardly at all. Once or twice a year he will eat a small steak, but thats it.

Part of my decision also, was because I know whats in hamburger. Especially the crappy ones that cost a dollar at McDonalds and Burger King. Its not meat you're eating, its spinal cord, and connective tissue, and muscle from parts of the body you wouldn't dream of eating. And even the steak you get at the grocers is so packed full of steroids and antibiotics its crazy.

I was raised to believe that you are supposed to eat "meat and potatoes" at every meal. However, this was an ideal because we though rich folks ate like that. However, thats not really true either. Most nobleman and women that we working class looked up to, ate fish, poultry, and various other animals. (by poultry, I mean birds in general, not just chicken)

So why is this still seen as "normal" by society? Its not a normal diet for humans, its part of our obesity problem, and other health issues.

I have dropped, no crap, 10lbs in three weeks of eating a steak once a week. I only eat fish, chicken, and pork most of the time. I have substituted cattle burger, for turkey burger, and I honestly can't taste the difference.

Is it time our doctors start telling us to cut down on the cow? Is it time that we celebrate with a tuna steak, instead of a T-bone?

Again, I'm not saying we should make people eat healthy. It just seems to me that our society expects people to eat unhealthy, because its some kind of status symbol.
Do you have idea how silly it sounds to single-out a food because of its color? It is a farce to think that meat that is red is bad, but if it is pink, or orange or white it is ok.

The gullibility factor is the US is through the roof.

OnoAhiMahi
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 09:33 AM
 
4,796 posts, read 22,960,701 times
Reputation: 5047
I don't think you can really 'change' a whole society's behavior of anything. It happens organically in small steps.

As for charging for obesity--I've got no problem with charging for unhealthy lifestyles. But it should be comprehensive, and should be focused on science and not appearance--using a whole body scan that tests everything: weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, pulmonary health, bone density, etc.

The result will be that yes most fat people will pay extra for insurance. Not all, because there are a lot of overweight people who are still healthy. And a lot of skinny people will get a surprise in their bill too because skinny doesn't mean healthy.

We will also need to look at what we define as healthy. Today's healthy weight charts identify a size six as healthy for a woman of average height. But the charts are skewed--the weights don't increase or decrease by the same multiplier as heights do, so taller people are expected to be skinnier and shorter people are accepted as fatter. Which isn't scientific. Plus, a generation ago size 8 was considered healthy and a generation before that, size 10. We need to really get more scientific about what is healthy and separate beauty and attraction from healthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,832 posts, read 41,175,401 times
Reputation: 62345
Yeah, about those fish that are so healthy for us that swim in the ocean...

Little kids pee in it.
Drunken boaters puke in it.
People dump toxic waste in it.
Fish fertilize in it.
Gulls poop in it.
Swimmers/surfers get sun tan lotion in it.

I think I'll pass on the seafood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 10:05 AM
 
5,064 posts, read 15,952,514 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Yeah, about those fish that are so healthy for us that swim in the ocean...

Little kids pee in it.
Drunken boaters puke in it.
People dump toxic waste in it.
Fish fertilize in it.
Gulls poop in it.
Swimmers/surfers get sun tan lotion in it.

I think I'll pass on the seafood.
So true. Plus a lot of fish are also full of prescription medications such as birth control pills etc. that come from our treated wastewater that gets poured into rivers/streams/lakes. We could probably sit here and debate all day about which meats/poultry/fish are healthiest, and still not find a truly healthy option.

I think most people by now are aware of the dangers of too much red meat in our diets, that's not news. I live by an "all things in moderation" rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Penobscot Bay, the best place in Maine!
1,895 posts, read 5,918,616 times
Reputation: 2703
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Yeah, about those fish that are so healthy for us that swim in the ocean...

Little kids pee in it.
Drunken boaters puke in it.
People dump toxic waste in it.
Fish fertilize in it.
Gulls poop in it.
Swimmers/surfers get sun tan lotion in it.

I think I'll pass on the seafood.
You'd better stop breathing air, too. I think it's been contaminated by people farting and burping.
(Not to mention the chemical toxins, both natural and not, that are hovering in the air!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Texas
8,672 posts, read 22,315,988 times
Reputation: 21370
Ok, let's change the social norm, but as had been pointed out here, that takes a long time! I was thinking the other day that really, after the mad cow stuff alone, we might should refrain from eating beef. However, do I still eat beef? Yep. Sure do. I like beef. I like beef a lot more than I like chicken, fish or ham. So I am willing to take what I consider a small risk to still eat it.

I think it really gets down to what some others have said that "moderation" in most things is the key. I think our society, however, is moving toward healthier eating patterns, getting more exercise etc. but again, it takes time for society to assimilate and adopt these changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2010, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,813 posts, read 24,467,345 times
Reputation: 8674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
How would you propose to go about doing this? You know that you can't simply legislate such change. So I'm interested to know what you'd do to change social norms.
Thats a toughy, and one reason I started this thread.

However, every time I go to the doctor, we don't talk about diet. Maybe thats because I'm healthy and at a good weight, but we don't talk about it.

The only people I know that doctors talk about diet with, are elderly folks, or those with heart problems. Also, the food pyramid focuses to much on meat products, in a lot of nutritionist opinions. That, and changing school lunch programs, to offer more veggies, and not offer bad meat all the time.

I'm open to other ideas though. The idea Omaha had, about taxing specific foods would be a good starter for the rest of us to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top