Obesity problem: Are fast food restaurants responsible or not?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,140
126
Ah for Christ's sakes, Amused, come out and fight. You barf that freedom crap out but you don't back it up with Jack or address the obvious flaws I show you over and over again. You have an idealized notion of freedom. I asked about compulsive and neurotic behavior. Who is free? Are children free, or do they submit to parental control and why? When do they grow up? Do all people mature at the same rate? Do the mentally retarded get to live with free choice? How about the criminal? Are you elitist enough to lock him away? Do abused children grow up with the same rational choice-making-powers as children from loving homes? Are there greater and lesser degrees of intelligence, is there something like a better and a worse?

You want all the simplicity of your theory and none of the grief. You're quite happy to call me elitist yet I've never sought to make these decisions for others. I only ask questions. You are st*bbing blindly in the night. Your notion is at least as elitist as the questions I raise. You have a settled position. You are sure like all elite. I'm looking with uncommitted eyes.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Do abused children grow up with the same rational choice-making-powers as children from loving homes?
Ive never thought of republicans as rational. Selfish maybe and that would make sense. I forgive them, it's not thier fault:)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,140
126
Amused isn't a Republican, as such. He's a Libertarian who believes that cunning (read elite) men who are too weak to defend themselves physically in a brutal Darwinsitic world, can band together and create a coercive state that in turn can create a body of property rights laws out of thin air such that they can keep and hold what nature would naturally deny them. Amused burries his elitism in layors of abstraction and conceals it even from himself, no?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Amused isn't a Republican, as such. He's a Libertarian who believes that cunning (read elite) men who are too weak to defend themselves physically in a brutal Darwinsitic world, can band together and create a coercive state that in turn can create a body of property rights laws out of thin air such that they can keep and hold what nature would naturally deny them. Amused burries his elitism in layors of abstraction and conceals it even from himself, no?
Well Moondoggie i was'nt calling him one. Mearly an observation I've had about those from the "other side" specifically the neo-cons.

However you do bring up and interesting point. Amused ideas of meritocracy are half-assed, in a real unrestricted meritocracy the strongest keep accumulating power until the weak are eliminated or maginalized however even he wants governmental limits/protections to protect the weak (property owners/businesses). Liberals like us prefer a system of balance where the most talented continue to be the most rewarded, but a percentage of their resources is redistributed back to the poor/middle class, to keep them competitive and in the game and healthy.

Inconsitancy of liberatarianism: Here

"Libertarians want a free lunch; they want the prosperity of America combined with the low taxes and regulation of Angola."


" However, this combination doesn't exist for a reason. ....Of course, few people would want to live in these places. The flow of international emigration is from low-tax Third World countries to high-tax First World countries, not vice versa. And there is a reason, at least among democratic countries, why the richest and most appealing nations have the highest taxes. Liberals argue that prosperity results when the people commission their governments to look after the common interest; this comes in the form of economic infrastructure (like highways), public goods (like national defense) and law and order (not just against street crime, but business crime as well). "
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,140
126
Hehe, Carb, I am a great proponent of taking the great individualists in our world, the ones with all their egotistical notions of their own self worth and value, that odd and sorry class that loves money for money's sake, and throwing them out into the desert where they can achieve to their hearts content. They are merely a parasite on the body of man, those for whom cunning has replaced real thinking.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote by Amused

That's the elitist authoritarian in you, Moonie. You earnestly believe everyone else cannot make their own choices. You believe only you, and a select few, are enlightened enough to see this, and therefore the unwashed masses must be cared for by your ilk.

Freedom is not an "idealized fantasy," moonie. It's being left alone by people like you who believe they know better than the masses, and therefore feel they must (s)mother them.[/quote]

SPA are probably rolling their eyes wondering at what point does society simply say "hmmm .... never thought about that" I earnestly believe I don't know what Moonie earnestly believes but, I do know that freedom is alive and cognisant of its limitations. Why Just yesterday freedom was heard to say "I am free to choose among the choices which something or someone has placed before me" I wonder what freedom meant?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
On this substantial planet more than 90% of all creatures ever to have existed have perished... We are here simply to provide Earth with PLASTIC.... nothing more and nothing less... Earth needed plastic and so it allowed us Youmans to evolve for the sole purpose of providing the plastic it wanted.... now it is time for us to join the 90% and Earth decided that Fast Foods and Viruses seemed the best way to rid it of this small inconvience called mankind.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,140
126
I am my brother's keeper. So I have to do the very best job of keeping as I can.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am my brother's keeper. So I have to do the very best job of keeping as I can.
The enormity of that task must keep you in stitches as you seek to mend the fabric sretching to accomodate the needs of the many obscured in the minds of the few.

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, Carb, I am a great proponent of taking the great individualists in our world, the ones with all their egotistical notions of their own self worth and value, that odd and sorry class that loves money for money's sake, and throwing them out into the desert where they can achieve to their hearts content. They are merely a parasite on the body of man, those for whom cunning has replaced real thinking.
Hmmmm, I consider myself a proponent of individuality. Never was much for conformity, collectivity or group thought.

I don't believe I have an extra large ego, I don't put money ahead of people nor do I worship money but I think capitalism is pretty spiffy. As for my self-worth? I've always thought I'm nothing special, no better than most. I just get along as best I can.

I hope I'm not a parasite.

What am I? An independent, a moderate, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative, a libertarian? Beats me. Probably a bit of each.

I just want a country in which people are free to earn money, have very little of it taken away to fund the whims of elite busybodies, so long as they bring no harm to others.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
suing fast food for making people fat? what about suing fat people for being lazy ass health hazard to themselves and the health care system of this country and for being ugly sights
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,166
7,519
126
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
So is this something that fast food restaurants are responsible for? Seems to me, people aren't forced to eat there and they know what is bad for them, yet they choose to purchase that junk. Seems to me the Bush regime is exerting it's control yet again.


Health Czar Warns Fast-Food Joints To Shape Up

Fast food joints may soon get singled out by U.S. health czar Tommy Thompson if they don't shape up and stop feeding the country's obesity problem.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson on Thursday said public pressure may do far more than lawsuits and legislation to curb the junk food explosion that costs the government $117 billion each year in obesity-related health care costs.

'I'm going to start giving out awards and singling out ones that are doing good and the ones that aren't,' he told reporters at a food policy conference. 'If I get in trouble, I get in trouble.'

Thompson specified PepsiCo Inc., Coca-Cola Co., McDonald's, Wendy's and Taco Bell as companies that could offer consumers healthier options and promote more sensible diets.
i guess he never saw diet coke or pepsi. or the failure that border lights were. or wendy's salads (damn good salads)

as for americans being lazier than before, that might be true, but what is also true is that the fat boom has been accompanied by an 800 calorie/per capita-day increase

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: cpumaster
suing fast food for making people fat? what about suing fat people for being lazy ass health hazard to themselves and the health care system of this country and for being ugly sights
Pre-emptive strike against fat!
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I believe restaurants are fairly safe while fast food joints are not. Why? Lawyers dine at former, never at the later.
In a thread full of BS, a shining beacon of truth rises to the top of the heap.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,201
11,634
146
Interesting twist:

Inactivity, not overeating, blamed for teens' weight gains

By IRA DREYFUSS
The Associated Press


Over two decades, teenagers have been getting fatter because they have been exercising less, not because they have been eating more, a study says.

Researcher Lisa Sutherland of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analyzed federal data on the diet, weight and physical activity of teens, ages 12 to 19. From 1980 to 2000, calories eaten rose 1 percent and obesity rose 10 percent, while physical activity dropped 13 percent.

Those percentages show that teenagers must have been getting fat primarily because they burned fewer calories. ``If caloric intake is flat and physical activity is declining, there is a cause and effect relationship there,'' Sutherland said.

She presented her findings last month in San Diego at a scientific conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. However, although other experts accept the idea that teens have become less active, the experts find it hard to swallow the conclusion that teens have not been overeating as well.

Sutherland looked at three large federal surveys. Data on weight came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and data on physical activity was from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, both maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data on caloric intake was from the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey maintained by the Agriculture Department.

The study said that teenagers ate an average of 2,290 calories a day over the 20 years. It also said that while 42 percent of teens reported doing at least 30 minutes of physical activity on a typical day at the start of the study, only 29 percent did at the end.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the National Soft Drink Association. But Sutherland said that in keeping with university rules, the association had no control over any aspect of the research.

``I was trained as a nutritionist,'' Sutherland said. ``The data kept coming out that caloric intake was basically flat, but there was a huge drive to look at diet. I said, 'Let's look at physical activity.'''

It's not surprising that teens have become less physically active, Sutherland said. Today's kids have more and better computers and video games, and less school physical education or after-school play, she said.

``I remember wanting to go outside the minute the sun came up, and my parents dragging me to go inside at sunset,'' said Sutherland, who is 35.

She noted that her study was limited because the three surveys had differing methodologies, and the decline in physical activity was based on students' self-reports.

While they accept Sutherland's idea that teenagers are burning too few calories, some outside observers think the report underestimates the damage also done by bad diet.

``I would take exception to that 1 percent (increase in calories),'' said Dr. Reginald Washington, of Denver, who chairs the sports medicine and fitness committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics. ``I think it's much higher than that.''

Fast food calories are a big part of teens' eating patterns, and supersizing is making the portions grow, Washington said.

``We are pretty sure they are eating too much, no matter what the data say,'' said Dr. Nancy Krebs of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, who chairs the pediatricians' group's committee on nutrition. ``There is quite a consensus that it is due to a combination of factors.''

``Our view is that it is a complex issue,'' said clinical nutritionist JoAnn Hattner of Stanford University, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. ``It may well be their activity is down, and for some it may be a combination of increased caloric intake and decreased activity.''

Accepting the conclusion that food is not a big part of the problem could take pressure off food companies to cut the calories they feed the nation, Hattner said.

``There is enough clamor throughout the country that we are getting corporations to change,'' Hattner said. ``We need to continue that clamor.''

On the Net:

Youth Risk Behavior Survey: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/2001/youth01online.htm

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Nationwide Food Consumption Survey: http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/home.htm

05/09/03 18:38 EDT
 

Jhill

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,187
2
0
I am going to sue golds gym because they didn't force me into their gym and handcuff me to a treadmill for 30 minutes every day.


And why is just fast food? Sit down restaurants are just a fattening as fast food places these days with their huge portions. More people eat at fast food places because they are fast and cheap. They should be sued for that?
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,144
3,913
136
Originally posted by: Amused
Such crap.

The explosion in obesity is relatively new. (post 1980 and exploding in the 1990s) Yet people ate far more fat and grease before 1970. Hell, EVERYONRE cooked with lard or bacon grease in the 70s and before.

The main reason for obesity in the US: Lack of physical activity.

Obesity grew with video games, cable TV and the Internet. I PROMISE you obesity levels would drop to pre-1980 levels if cable TV, video games and the Internet disappeared.
 

chin311

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
4,307
3
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
try to take my internet, I will just have Al Gore build me another one....
lol, good one.

noone is 'responsible' except for the people, you choose where/what you eat, therefore its YOUR problem.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
try to take my internet, I will just have Al Gore build me another one....
LOL, but just to set the record straight, Al Gore said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet," not that he "invented" it. Whether he did the former or not is still debatable, of course. ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,140
126
Hmmmm, I consider myself a proponent of individuality. Never was much for conformity, collectivity or group thought.

I don't believe I have an extra large ego, I don't put money ahead of people nor do I worship money but I think capitalism is pretty spiffy. As for my self-worth? I've always thought I'm nothing special, no better than most. I just get along as best I can.

I hope I'm not a parasite.

What am I? An independent, a moderate, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative, a libertarian? Beats me. Probably a bit of each.

I just want a country in which people are free to earn money, have very little of it taken away to fund the whims of elite busybodies, so long as they bring no harm to others.
--------------------------
You are clearly weird and of no statistical importance.


The real cause of fat is estrogen analogues in plastics and bovine growth hormone.

I see Amused never came back to defend his elitism. Hehe........
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I say if you drink 40 gallons of fat free soda you'll explode if not then you'll get pretty fat... as aposed to ugly fat which only occurs when you don't eat food that is pretty full of fat.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,201
11,634
146
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hmmmm, I consider myself a proponent of individuality. Never was much for conformity, collectivity or group thought.

I don't believe I have an extra large ego, I don't put money ahead of people nor do I worship money but I think capitalism is pretty spiffy. As for my self-worth? I've always thought I'm nothing special, no better than most. I just get along as best I can.

I hope I'm not a parasite.

What am I? An independent, a moderate, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative, a libertarian? Beats me. Probably a bit of each.

I just want a country in which people are free to earn money, have very little of it taken away to fund the whims of elite busybodies, so long as they bring no harm to others.
--------------------------
You are clearly weird and of no statistical importance.


The real cause of fat is estrogen analogues in plastics and bovine growth hormone.

I see Amused never came back to defend his elitism. Hehe........
Nothing to defend Moonie. The only thing I regret is being pulled in by your 'baffle 'em with bullsh!t' routine again. I'll try not to let that happen in the future.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,657
5,140
126
Nothing to defend Moonie. The only thing I regret is being pulled in by your 'baffle 'em with bullsh!t' routine again. I'll try not to let that happen in the future.
----------------------------------
Actually all I did was examine an unexamined assumption underpinning your philosophy and showed it to be just another disguised form of elitism. You are wise not to defend your position. It would only draw more attention to its fundamentally flawed character. Play with your castles, I'll study the sand. I'd like to see a bigger baffle um with BS than Libertarianism. I found it rather remarkable that I turned up 100% Libertarian in sympathy on one of our political tests that gets linked to here with some frequency just by voting for the status quo. We must be living in pure Libertarian ecstasy.

I do love your idealism though.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
At 12 characters per inch there is alot of room on here for the elite. In fact, there is an abundance of elite messages hereabouts... even the ones disguised as Pica are easily spotted for their true nature...
If I were to do the measurment I'd wager every one posting has some elite postings... at least one anyway... and that one gives up the true and often hidden ego driven posting...

Unless of course you don't use that pitch... then nevermind.;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY