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.
I think we can all at least agree, whatever the overweight/obesity rate is here in the US, that sadly it's probably not going to go down any time soon if ever, and will probably just continue to get worse!
I just don't see hundreds of millions of people turning into health freaks any time soon.
Its going to get worse. Its understandable that some folks are larger than others, but when I look at the obese people in commercials eating at a drive up window, its clear that the message is that its OK to be unhealthy. Staying fit is work. It takes willpower. If I eat more than 1800 calories a day I gain weight and that is with working out and daily yard work (lord knows I miss baked spaghetti with feta). That can either be a lot of food if one avoids sugar, wheat and most dairy, or if one goes to a drive-up window at a food establishment, its just one meal (Whooper with cheese 740 calories; 10 chicken nuggets 430 calories, garden salad (for health!) with dressing 320 calories and a coke 210 calories...and these are not even the biggest servings.)
For those interested in seeing the obesity rate comparison charts between Food Stamps recipients and everyone else, they're on page xi of this USDA document:
Also keep in mind that the USDA found that "SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics ([overall], 46 percent versus 36 percent)."
It's quite clear that the duplication and overlap in Federal free food programs and benefits is enabling higher obesity rates. It should be either/or, NOT 2 or more. STOP enabling obesity and its consequent, debilitating obesity-related illnesses.
It is not incorrect. The USDA OIG report itself calls it "duplication and overlap."
As usual, you're missing the qualifier in that sentence: may be, as in "FNS may be duplicating ..."
There was no conclusion here.
And you might try finding a study that's not 14 years old. LMAO ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Also keep in mind that the USDA found that "SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics ([overall], 46 percent versus 36 percent)."
Once again, for the folks in the back: Correlation does not equal causation.
Quote:
It's quite clear that the duplication and overlap in Federal free food programs and benefits is enabling higher obesity rates. It should be either/or, NOT 2 or more. STOP enabling obesity and its consequent, debilitating obesity-related illnesses.
It's not clear at all. You simply do not comprehend how these food programs work. A child who receives breakfast and lunch at school is indeed receiving two federal food programs, but there is no overlap, and no duplication, and no exceeding 100% of USDA nutrition guidelines. A family receiving WIC benefits for an infant and/or a pregnant or nursing mom, and breakfast and lunch at school for one or more elementary school age children, is receiving three federal food programs, but once again there is no overlap, no duplication, and no exceeding 100% of USDA nutrition guidelines. Even SNAP benefits (don't forget that the S in SNAP stands for Supplemental ...) are not likely to push a family over the 100% level.
Instead, you're saying that a kid should get breakfast, but not lunch? Or that an infant should receive WIC benefits, but his school age brother should not receive lunch? There's no duplication or overlap there. Get a grip.
Also keep in mind that the USDA found that "SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics ([overall], 46 percent versus 36 percent)."
And...
"FNS commissioned a study that detailed the extent of multiple participation in four major FNS programs—SNAP, WIC, SBP, and NSLP—for a 4-month period in 2006. The study reported that among the families that participated in at least one of the four major programs, about 41 percent participated in only one, and 59 participated in two or more programs."
The Fed Gov enables them to eat more than 100% of their daily nutritional needs. The result? Kids and adults on Food Stamps have higher obesity rates than any other groups, including the income-eligible who do not receive Food Stamps.
It's quite clear that the duplication and overlap in Federal free food programs and benefits is enabling higher obesity rates. It should be either/or, NOT 2 or more. STOP enabling obesity and its consequent, debilitating obesity-related illnesses. That's a particularly cruel and grotesque form of oppression.
Why do you feel it so necessary to keep as many poor people obese and ill as possible? What do you gain from that? Do you somehow profit from any, some, or all of the 18 Federal free food services and programs? Do you profit from keeping people obese and ill because you're in the health care industry? What? Why the perverse insistence on keeping as many poor people as possible obese and ill?
I think we can all at least agree, whatever the overweight/obesity rate is here in the US, that sadly it's probably not going to go down any time soon if ever, and will probably just continue to get worse!
I just don't see hundreds of millions of people turning into health freaks any time soon.
I agree. We live in a world of convenience and lots of choices. Until those go away the majority of Americans will be overweight.
Some people do over consume fruit. There are people who have to stay away from more natural sugars because it sets them off. Instead of eating grapes, they do better eating granny smith apples.
Your last question makes no sense. Sugar is in more food than not. People don't have to be eating sugar straight out of sugar packets. Simple carbs like bread, white potatoes, pasta and rice easily convert to sugar so people who have a sugar addiction tend to prefer that food in their diets. They also have to look at the glycemic index of food to see if it slowly or quickly releases blood glucose levels.
I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. I know what I've read and learned. That you haven't read and learned it is of no interest to me.
Any overconsumption of fruit you claim is not due addition. Try again.
Yes, my last question makes perfect sense because you are claiming that sugar itself is addictive. What you are doing is confusing Hyperpalatable foods with sugar. It is the hyper palatable foods full of processed carbs and fats NOT the sugar itself that is addictive. Either you don’t understand this concept or you refuse to accept this fact because of your bias against sugar.
Of course you don’t want to debate me because you have failed miserably in providing any meaningful evidence of your claim that sugar itself is addictive.
Any overconsumption of fruit you claim is not due addition. Try again.
Yes, my last question makes perfect sense because you are claiming that sugar itself is addictive. What you are doing is confusing Hyperpalatable foods with sugar. It is the hyper palatable foods full of processed carbs and fats NOT the sugar itself that is addictive. Either you don’t understand this concept or you refuse to accept this fact because of your bias against sugar.
Of course you don’t want to debate me because you have failed miserably in providing any meaningful evidence of your claim that sugar itself is addictive.
Sugar is definitely addictive, it works in the same way that heroin, alcohol, gambling, etc does. Ive even seen addiction specialists say sugar addiction is more powerful that heroin or alcohol.
Sugar is definitely addictive, it works in the same way that heroin, alcohol, gambling, etc does. Ive even seen addiction specialists say sugar addiction is more powerful that heroin or alcohol.
Where is the data then?
You must mean that hyper palatable foods are addictive. Ironically anyone that is addicted to sweets also has a problem with hamburgers fries and other junk food.
Have you ever heard anyone being addicted to JUST sugar? No you haven’t. They are addicted to foods that are very high in processed carbs and fats. Most often these foods you speak of have much higher amounts of processed carbs and fats than sugar.
Foods high in processed carbs and fats are highly addictive.
Any overconsumption of fruit you claim is not due addition. Try again.
Yes, my last question makes perfect sense because you are claiming that sugar itself is addictive. What you are doing is confusing Hyperpalatable foods with sugar. It is the hyper palatable foods full of processed carbs and fats NOT the sugar itself that is addictive. Either you don’t understand this concept or you refuse to accept this fact because of your bias against sugar.
Of course you don’t want to debate me because you have failed miserably in providing any meaningful evidence of your claim that sugar itself is addictive.
I have no problem debating those who are well-read on a topic. You may have a breadth of understanding on some subject, but this isn't it.
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.
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.
