Cavemen In A World Of Excess

[Mighty AC]

We are basically hunter-gatherers living in a modern world that no longer suits us. Our bodies evolved to be very energy efficient. We naturally expend very little energy and are exceptional at storing it. These adaptations were essential for surviving in the paleolithic when fat and digestible carbs were scarce and meals were far from regular. We had to expend energy to survive and if we managed to score a little extra food, our bodies stored the surplus for us. This came in handy when the inevitable shortages came along.

Of course, we went on to shield ourselves from the natural selection process and our calorie efficient bodies now exist in a vastly different world. We no longer have to expend energy to survive and calorie dense foods are available constantly. The average medium cola alone contains over 40 grams of refined sugar and we regularly add that to 500 plus Calorie burgers and 400 Calories worth of fries. Hell we can even get our chubby hands on the double diabetes combo without stepping out of our planet killing cars. In short, we are not naturally suited to the world we have created for ourselves.

As a result our health is declining and diet related illnesses are sucking up an ever increasing share of our healthcare dollars. We absolutely have to change the way the average westerner eats, but how? Mayor Bloomberg in NY, tried to ban the massive, sugar soaked sodas we're poisoning ourselves with and people were ready to lynch him. So banning existing products may not be the answer.

Through taxation, minor regulatory tweaks and public awareness campaigns we were able to lower the percentage of the population that smokes from over 50% to 20% in 50-60 years. That's great, but cancer sticks aren't necessary for survival like food.

We are not well suited to handling chronic, slow developing, problems with effects felt so long after the events that cause them. Thus governments need to put rules in place that encourage us to do the right thing. To save us from ourselves, so to speak. If they can separate themselves from the food lobby what actions should politicians take to improve the dietary health of westerners?

[Bonam]

Thus governments need to put rules in place that encourage us to do the right thing. To save us from ourselves, so to speak.

I very strongly disagree with this statement. This is not the role of government. Government is a giant bloated apparatus that already pervades far too many aspects of our lives, and creating additional branches of money-sucking bureaucracy that tell people what and what not to eat sounds terrible. Any overtly harmful substances in foods are already banned, and that is enough.

The information to make better choices about diet and lifestyle is already widely available. Many people already make these choices. Parents can teach their kids about healthy living. These ideas can also be presented in school classes such as PE (and they already are). Additionally, people should be getting advice from their doctors. Beyond that, people should be allowed to make their own individual decisions.

[The_Squid]

Another option is making the bad for you stuff much more expensive. Could a can of coke be less harmful if the company was forced to make it out of healthier products? What if refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup wasn't available for them to use? Don't ban pop, ban the bad ingredients.... Or penalize the bad ingredients. Companies will adapt and make their product from other ingredients.

[bush_cheney2004]

False conclusions that are not supported by other health metrics, mortality, longevity, populations, etc. compared to "hunter gatherer" societies. The premise is flawed, and we sure as hell do not need the power of government to force any such behaviour modifications.

Those who wish such things can move to the bush, pick berries, and die young.

Edited November 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Mighty AC]

Any overtly harmful substances in foods are already banned, and that is enough.

The information to make better choices about diet and lifestyle is already widely available.

I disagree. I'd say the quantity of refined sugars being consumed is overtly dangerous. Plus the long gap between the cause and effect make it very hard for people to tackle diet related issues. Information like a glycemic index on nutrition lables would make it far easier for people to make intelligent choices. For example many people are unaware that by volume most flavoured yogurts contain more sugar than Coke. People choose Fruit Rollup type snacks because the label says "Made With Real Fruit", yet they have a glycemic index higher than most sodas.

I support sin taxes on booze and tobacco because the use of such products does contribute to societal costs. Similarly, I think taxing high glycemic foods would be an appropriate lever to help steer people in the right direction.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Bonam]

I disagree. I'd say the quantity of refined sugars being consumed is overtly dangerous. Plus the long gap between the cause and effect make it very hard for people to tackle diet related issues. Information like a glycemic index on nutrition lables would make it far easier for people to make intelligent choices. For example many people are unaware that by volume most flavoured yogurts contain more sugar than Coke. People choose Fruit Rollup type snacks because the label says "Made With Real Fruit", yet they have a glycemic index higher than most sodas.

I support sin taxes on booze and tobacco because the use of such products does contribute to societal costs. Similarly, I think taxing high glycemic foods would be an appropriate lever to help steer people in the right direction.

Except that foods with high energy content are only harmful to people that are sedentary. When I go on a mountain climb, we burn 10k+ calories per day. Last thing I need is a tax on foods that will keep me energized while I partake in physical activity. People that aren't stupid know how much energy their body needs and eat accordingly. I also enjoy a good 3000+ calorie dinner after getting back to town from a hard day. Like anything else, your scheme would be another government bureaucracy that doesn't understand exceptions, circumstances, but rather applies blanket rules that may save the idiotic lowest common denominator from themselves while only imposing additional burdens on everyone else. '

Tobacco is harmful to everyone. Food with a high energy density is not. Your analogy fails.

No.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Bonam

[bleeding heart]

We are not well suited to handling chronic, slow developing, problems with effects felt so long after the events that cause them. Thus governments need to put rules in place that encourage us to do the right thing. To save us from ourselves, so to speak. If they can separate themselves from the food lobby what actions should politicians take to improve the dietary health of westerners?

Even if I liked this idea (and I don't) I don't agree that it is the way things work. If you look at sea changes in social/cultural perspectives, it seems to me that the Government tends to play catch-up, at best.

For example, the smoking bans wouldn't have worked too well if they'd occurred much earlier (in my opinion). Popular sentiment against smoking had to come first...the government followed along.

And in terms of democratically-minded societies, a powerful argument can be made that this is as it should be.

[Mighty AC]

Except that foods with high energy content are only harmful to people that are sedentary. When I go on a mountain climb, we burn 10k+ calories per day. Last thing I need is a tax on foods that will keep me energized while I partake in physical activity. People that aren't stupid know how much energy their body needs and eat accordingly. I also enjoy a good 3000+ calorie dinner after getting back to town from a hard day. Like anything else, your scheme would be another government bureaucracy that doesn't understand exceptions, circumstances, but rather applies blanket rules that may save the idiotic lowest common denominator from themselves while only imposing additional burdens on everyone else. '

Tobacco is harmful to everyone. Food with a high energy density is not. Your analogy fails.

No.

You are a minority. 69.2% of people over the age of 20 are now overweight. Treatment of preventable diet related diseases are the number 1 health care expense. Most people do not have the necessary knowledge required to eat a diet with an appropriate energy level and balance of nutrients.

As for tobacco, we don't remove the tax for the minority of the populations that would not be adversely effected like the very elderly or those with a terminal disease.

[Shady]

You are a minority. 69.2% of people over the age of 20 are now overweight. Treatment of preventable diet related diseases are the number 1 health care expense. Most people do not have the necessary knowledge required to eat a diet with an appropriate energy level and balance of nutrients.

As for tobacco, we don't remove the tax for the minority of the populations that would not be adversely effected like the very elderly or those with a terminal disease.

It's less about the foods we eat, and more about not being active.

Anyways, taxing such foods only punishes the poor and lower middle class.

[Mighty AC]

It's less about the foods we eat, and more about not being active.

Anyways, taxing such foods only punishes the poor and lower middle class.

It is unfortunate that fresh, healthy foods are more expensive than the processed variety. However, not all boxed, canned and processed foods are heavily sweetened. A tax based on the glycemic index wouldn't increase the price of all processed food.

[Bonam]

You are a minority.

Oh I see. And so since I am a minority I should pay a punishing tax designed to change the behaviors of stupid people. No thank you.

Most people do not have the necessary knowledge required to eat a diet with an appropriate energy level and balance of nutrients.

So clearly the solution is to arbitrarily tax things, rather than providing people with the necessary knowledge.

Sigh.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are a minority. 69.2% of people over the age of 20 are now overweight.

The USA's CDC does not apply to a "world of excess". Lots of people around the world live on less than average Norte American or European calorie consumption per day.

http://statinfo.biz/geomap.aspx?act=7753〈=2

[Accountability Now]

You are a minority. [url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm]69.2% of people over the age of 20 are now overweight.

I agree with the basis of of what you are saying in that people should be aware of the dangers or should I say the consequences of a high glycemic diet. However the 69.2% of people are based on BMI which to me is a crude way to measure overweight people. For example, you can have a person that has 7% body fat and a fairly muscular build yet they are considered overweight on this scale. I've had this same conversation with my doctor a number of times and he agrees its vague at best.

IMO, its not just the sugars but the overall carbs that are affecting us. We used to eat more eggs and meat but were told to eliminate these foods as they caused heart disease. As such our plates were filled with starches and complex carbs. I think we could easily shift back to a larger protein diet and cut back on our carbs.

[Moonlight Graham]

Most people do not have the necessary knowledge required to eat a diet with an appropriate energy level and balance of nutrients.

I think there at least needs to be a massive campaign about nutrition for the public. Maybe the government could pay for that. I wouldn't go as far as banning foods, even though most of the foods most people eat aren't very good for them. Even things like white bread and white pasta aren't very good for your body compared to whole grains (ie: food that is more natural and not highly processed). Even most non-organic fruits contain pesticides and fertilizers that aren't ideally healthy for your body.

Most of the fruits/veggies, grains, dairy, and meat that we eat is absolutely disgusting. That's the 4 food groups right there, and they hardly resemble "real" food anymore (I define "real" food as that which was eaten by virtually all humans until a century or 2 ago).

Edited November 8, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

Most of the fruits/veggies, grains, dairy, and meat that we eat is absolutely disgusting. That's the 4 food groups right there, and they hardly resemble "real" food anymore (I define "real" food as that which was eaten by virtually all humans until a century or 2 ago).

And yet life expectancies are close to double what they were 2 centuries ago. Our foods may be less natural, but they are also much less likely to contain harmful bacteria and parasites, and they are also plentiful in both quantity and variety. And, almost all foods have their nutritional content clearly labeled, allowing people greater knowledge and control than ever of what they eat. All this mooning for the past when people subsisted off a few frozen potatoes and worm-infested sacks of grain over the winter is kind of silly (not necessarily saying you do this MG, but I've seen a lot of people do so).

Honestly, people just need to get up off their couches and move around and they'd have no problems. Mighty AC: There are much better solutions out there than trying to get the government to tell you what you should eat (or what you can afford to eat) because one is too lazy/incompetent to make good choices for oneself. Seriously, when did people get so unable to think for themselves that they would ask government to regulate what kinds of foods should be allowed/affordable and which should be banned/taxed out of existence?

This thread makes me weep for the future of the human race.

[bush_cheney2004]

This thread makes me weep for the future of the human race.

No need to weep....there has always been a sub-culture of "health food" extremists who think they have found the answer to all manner of human excess and affliction through diet. My first introduction to such people came in the late 1960's with folks I would call "The Juicers". They would use (what we now call "food processers") to juice everything they consumed....all "natural" of course. We still have that kind of cult today based on late night infomercials, but now its all about "supplements" made from "natural ingredients".

Edited November 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

No need to weep....there has always been a sub-culture of "health food" extremists who think they have found the answer to all manner of human excess and affliction through diet. My first introduction to such people came in the late 1960's with folks I would call "The Juicers".

You know, that's totally fine. If they want to juice their foods, more power to them. But when they call on government to tax or ban all non-juiced foods, then we have a problem. The OP seems to think that the solution for dietary issues is government control.

[waldo]

This thread makes me weep for the future of the human race.

get a grip! This thread makes we chuckle whenever the selective libertarians come mightily forward to champion small(er) government in the name of advocating for Fast/Junk Food. Freedom!

[Moonlight Graham]

And yet life expectancies are close to double what they were 2 centuries ago. Our foods may be less natural, but they are also much less likely to contain harmful bacteria and parasites, and they are also plentiful in both quantity and variety. And, almost all foods have their nutritional content clearly labeled, allowing people greater knowledge and control than ever of what they eat.

I'm not arguing against any of this. I'm saying eating food in its fresher, more natural state (more local fruits and veggies free of artificial lab-made pesticides/fertilizers/preservatives, meat and dairy not filled with hormones and anti-biotics etc.) is much, much healthier than most of the alternatives you find in the typical grocery store.

[Bonam]

I'm not arguing against any of this. I'm saying eating food in its fresher, more natural state (more local fruits and veggies free of artificial lab-made pesticides/fertilizers/preservatives, meat and dairy not filled with hormones and anti-biotics etc.) is much, much healthier than most of the alternatives you find in the typical grocery store.

Great. Absolutely. And in today's world people have the option to do just that if they wish. So what's the problem?

[Moonlight Graham]

Great. Absolutely. And in today's world people have the option to do just that if they wish. So what's the problem?

The problem is that most people in our society aren't eating very well. The solution I guess is the topic of this thread. IMO the solution is information.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is plenty of information already provided. People will still make choices contrary to such "information", and that is OK.

[Bonam]

The problem is that most people in our society aren't eating very well. The solution I guess is the topic of this thread. IMO the solution is information.

I would agree with the sentiment that information is the solution. That being said, I am not certain that I blankly accept the statement that "most people in our society aren't eating very well". Perhaps the problem is less with diet and more with activity level? Humans were not designed to live sedentary lives, and yet many now do.

[Mighty AC]

This thread makes me weep for the future of the human race.

Oh the drama. Students learn about sound nutrition and healthy living every year (in Ontario at least) from Kindergarten to grade 9, and have done so for a long time. However, diet related health issues have been steadily increasing not declining. Though activity levels have fallen some, the main culprit is diet. Over the last 30 years average calorie consumption in the US has surged from 3200 Cal to 3900 Cal. Though we have also generally replaced leaves with seeds in our diet, (grains instead of veggies), sugar consumption has skyrocketed.

Since, preventable diet related issues are the number one cost to the healthcare system, something has to be done. At one time smoking related costs occupied the top spot but education, regulation and taxation has effectively minimized the impacts of tobacco. I propose that a similar approach should be applied to our diets.

Education alone has not been effective thus far, so how would you change it? What else would you propose?

[Moonlight Graham]

I would agree with the sentiment that information is the solution. That being said, I am not certain that I blankly accept the statement that "most people in our society aren't eating very well". Perhaps the problem is less with diet and more with activity level? Humans were not designed to live sedentary lives, and yet many now do.

The problem is diet and activity level. But no matter how active you are, if you're putting crap in your body it's making you less healthy, period.