Republican now hate hungry children

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,227
146
Idealist, what?

You said something dumb, that the quality of food is determined by its calorie count, and I pointed it out. I am unaware of any credible expert who would support such a claim, but if you can provide backup for this, please do so.

As I said, the quality of food is it's ability to extend energy the longest and fatten an animal up for the next lean period. Animals traditionally gravitate toward the most calorie dense foods available. Animals who are too narrow in their diet with poor quality foods (not calorie dense) spend all day grazing, while animals who do eat calorie dense foods spend their days chasing their foods. Guess which animal we were?

We crave fatty, salty and sweet foods for a reason. They are, in nature, the highest quality foods.

Calorie dense foods ARE high quality. But like everything else, are bad in excess. Just as relaxation is GOOD for you, but bad in excess.

Now we have an abundance of both, and no self control.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,227
146
If you eat what you preach you'll be lucky to still have feet before you move one to that bike trail in the sky.

I see, not up to the challange, huh?

I eat a balanced diet of just about everything. Why would you have any kind of idea about what I eat by what I have said here?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I see, not up to the challange, huh?

I eat a balanced diet of just about everything. Why would you have any kind of idea about what I eat by what I have said here?

Because you're basically advocating that all one needs to do is suck down 2000 calories of Kayro syrup a day and you'll be a paragon of health.

And isn't 43 a little old to be making challenges over the internet?
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
This debate nicely shows the different amounts of faith conservatives and liberals have in government. The liberals think that government can micromanage dietary intake to make the population smarter ("We will have more rocket scientists if we just feed kids more omega 3's!") and is willing to spend billions to tinker based on the latest dietary studies (never mind that we still have a long way to go in understanding the perfect diet).

Meanwhile, conservatives recognize that this program would have a minute effect on childrens' overall diet and that parents and personal choice are the biggest factors.

I'm with conservatives on this one.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
In Fort Bend county schools they already provide healthy meal choices for the children and don't allow unhealthy foods (ie vending machines or soft drinks). This has been in effect for several years. Yet you still see obese children. You would think that you would see less obese children based on what those who support the measure in this thread have posted.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Why don't the progessives just make it illegal to feed kids anything other than their federal government approved diet and portion size? I mean stop trying to hide the real goal here and just come right out and do what you really want.

I say that tongue in cheek, but it's really not so far fetched when you read the liberals posting in this very thread.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Idealist, what?

You said something dumb, that the quality of food is determined by its calorie count, and I pointed it out. I am unaware of any credible expert who would support such a claim, but if you can provide backup for this, please do so.

He posted an explanation, literally right next to his original statement, that you obviously couldn't comprehend.

In an evolutionary sense, need for food is a hardwired physiological instinct. If you are running through the forest all day chasing after animals, the higher calorie density of the food, the higher the quality. A big, fatty hunk of a deer is of much higher quality than a bowl of leaves. Hell... I ate about 4000 calories a day for over 2 months in Ranger school, and I still lost about 20 pounds.

So if you would think for a minute, you'd realize how right Amused is. We now have access to food that is higher in quality than at any point in our evolution, and we are the least active too. Increasing the "health" of food we are feeding people isn't going to change shit, decreasing the quantity is. I can get fat eating lean chicken all day, and I can lose weight eating taco bell all day. Calories in -> Calories out.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,227
146
Because you're basically advocating that all one needs to do is suck down 2000 calories of Kayro syrup a day and you'll be a paragon of health.

And isn't 43 a little old to be making challenges over the internet?

That is not what I said. Not even close.

You're the one who questioned my health. I simply put up. I'm in San Diego. Come out and we'll ride. :) And after we finish you can eat your sprouts, and I'll have a BBQ bacon burger. :)
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Because you're basically advocating that all one needs to do is suck down 2000 calories of Kayro syrup a day and you'll be a paragon of health.

And isn't 43 a little old to be making challenges over the internet?

1 calorie = 1 calorie. This math cannot be refuted.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,227
146
He posted an explanation, literally right next to his original statement, that you obviously couldn't comprehend.

In an evolutionary sense, need for food is a hardwired physiological instinct. If you are running through the forest all day chasing after animals, the higher calorie density of the food, the higher the quality. A big, fatty hunk of a deer is of much higher quality than a bowl of leaves. Hell... I ate about 4000 calories a day for over 2 months in Ranger school, and I still lost about 20 pounds.

So if you would think for a minute, you'd realize how right Amused is. We now have access to food that is higher in quality than at any point in our evolution, and we are the least active too. Increasing the "health" of food we are feeding people isn't going to change shit, decreasing the quantity is. I can get fat eating lean chicken all day, and I can lose weight eating taco bell all day. Calories in -> Calories out.

But no! Amused said something dumb!

In the leftist world, up is down, black is white and calorie dense foods are low quality foods. I guess that means high quality gas for leftists is the gas that gets you half the milage too. (cough ethanol cough) okay, that's not fair, idiots from both sides are guilty of the ethanol scam))
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
That is not what I said. Not even close.

You're the one who questioned my health. I simply put up. I'm in San Diego. Come out and we'll ride. :) And after we finish you can eat your sprouts, and I'll have a BBQ bacon burger. :)

You're the one stating caloric density defines quality of food. And you're welcome to ride on out to NC and have some real BBQ instead.

1 calorie = 1 calorie. This math cannot be refuted.

Same old BS. Look, there is more to nutrition than calories. Arguing that is like arguing that diesel engines should run on gasoline. The form and accompanying nutrients matter.

Jesus folks, you have the entire internet at your fingertips, and still spout this same old ignorant shit. You want an internet challenge? I challenge all you folks to live on 2000 calories of Karo syrup for a month and see how you do. No water either, since that's calorie free and obviously nutritionally useless.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,227
146
You're the one stating caloric density defines quality of food. And you're welcome to ride on out to NC and have some real BBQ instead.



Same old BS. Look, there is more to nutrition than calories. Arguing that is like arguing that diesel engines should run on gasoline. The form and accompanying nutrients matter.

Jesus folks, you have the entire internet at your fingertips, and still spout this same old ignorant shit. You want an internet challenge? I challenge all you folks to live on 2000 calories of Karo syrup for a month and see how you do. No water either, since that's calorie free and obviously nutritionally useless.

But the entire point of this program is to combat OBESITY. And since TRUE nutritional deficiency is RARE in the US, the food problem facing kids is EXCESS. Period.

Are kids getting enough calories? Yes. Too many, as a matter of fact.

Are kids getting enough vitamins and minerals? Yes.

So what is the point in throwing more money at school food programs? If anything, they should be limiting based on calories.

There IS more to nutrition than just calories. Of course there is. But the lack of TRUE nutritional deficiencies in the US points to calories being the problem. We are surrounded by calorie dense foods and have no self control. You can keep going to ridiculous extremes if you want, but human nature doesn't direct us to drink Karo syrup. It directs us to crave calorie dense, fatty, salty and sweet foods. Not just one, but many different high quality (calorie dense) foods. Why? Because people who got the most of those foods bred the most back when we were chasing our food.

I would love some real BBQ. I miss NC :(
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
You're the one stating caloric density defines quality of food. And you're welcome to ride on out to NC and have some real BBQ instead.



Same old BS. Look, there is more to nutrition than calories. Arguing that is like arguing that diesel engines should run on gasoline. The form and accompanying nutrients matter.

Jesus folks, you have the entire internet at your fingertips, and still spout this same old ignorant shit. You want an internet challenge? I challenge all you folks to live on 2000 calories of Karo syrup for a month and see how you do. No water either, since that's calorie free and obviously nutritionally useless.

2000 calories = 2000 calories =/= balance of vitamins and nutrients

Nice try.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is not the federal governments responsibility to feed children. There is a reason why each state is responsible for their own children. What happens is some states dont try to help their own children or the rights of their own workers then they want the federal government to bail them out. Why should someone from Missouri pay to feed children in California that are not even US Citizens? There are some states which feed their own children well and there are some states which are dirt poor and dont care about children. This is why it is not the federal government which is responsible for feeding people.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
So basically you're trying to convince us that poor kids in America are eating 2000 calories of syrup and are malnourished? lol fucking fail either way.

They are eating >2000 calories of junk and are still malnourished because it's nutritionally-lacking junk. But don't let the reality of that exact scenario happening affect your opinion otherwise.

God damn I hate this place. I'm done.
 
Last edited:

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
They are eating >2000 calories of junk and are still malnourished because it's nutritionally-lacking junk. But don't let the reality of that exact scenario happening affect your opinion otherwise.

God damn I hate this place. I'm done.

lol you are claiming fat American kids are malnourished. Do you really not see the ridiculousness of your claim and your need to control people's lives and my money?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
lol you are claiming fat American kids are malnourished. Do you really not see the ridiculousness of your claim and your need to control people's lives and my money?

per wiki, excess calorie intake resulting in obesity is malnutrition.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
To progressives, a free lunch is always ideal. Any food furnished by the government is by definition a free lunch and therefore ideal.

95% of what is said here about liberals is wrong or lies. I can't remember the other 5%.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,769
136
He posted an explanation, literally right next to his original statement, that you obviously couldn't comprehend.

In an evolutionary sense, need for food is a hardwired physiological instinct. If you are running through the forest all day chasing after animals, the higher calorie density of the food, the higher the quality. A big, fatty hunk of a deer is of much higher quality than a bowl of leaves. Hell... I ate about 4000 calories a day for over 2 months in Ranger school, and I still lost about 20 pounds.

So if you would think for a minute, you'd realize how right Amused is. We now have access to food that is higher in quality than at any point in our evolution, and we are the least active too. Increasing the "health" of food we are feeding people isn't going to change shit, decreasing the quantity is. I can get fat eating lean chicken all day, and I can lose weight eating taco bell all day. Calories in -> Calories out.

And the explanation was completely wrong. Feel free to take up what I asked him for, and provide a single credible expert that believes the quality of food we eat is defined by its caloric content.

I'll be waiting, as no one defines quality that way.