Canadians Too Stupid To Chose Own Food?

[maplesyrup]

Listening to Cross Country Checkup right now.

Subject is: To what extent should the Canadian and or provinces government get involved in what we eat?

I say go for it as long as it is not smoked by the food industry.

Like cigarette smoking we have known for years some of these foods are poisons for human beings.

Scientific evidence says these transfats are poisons - let's protect our children, for goodness sake!

Guess I should have checked before starting this thread as there already is another one dealing with obesity.

[Big Blue Machine]

Well, that's the people's fault. They should educate themselves with some gov't help. We should also have a national walk or exercise day, I know it sounds like a dumb idea.

[maplesyrup]

Actually I like it. Good suggestion! - we could call it "GET OFF THE COUCH DAY" I guess one day out of 365 is not a bad beginning for a lot of FAT Canadians.

[Big Blue Machine]

No one is FAT, they are just thinly challenged. Towns could have a walking day each year, on a Saturday. Maybe schools could have more exercise education in the class.

[Slavik44]

No one is FAT, they are just thinly challenged. Towns could have a walking day each year, on a Saturday. Maybe schools could have more exercise education in the class.

Or maybe people could just walk to school. This is something that has always suprised me, almost everyone is thrown ina car and taken to school, when a ten fifteen minute walk in the morning, may just be one of the best things for people. Unfortunantley, as you guys know, I question wetehr or not a ban on trans fats will make Canadians any healthier. I also woudl liek to point out that you guys are confusing Fat you eat and Fat that is on your body, Fat doesn't neccasarily make you Fat. the downside to Fat is that it contains alot more bang for your buck as far as energy is concerned, and in soem cases can simply be empty calories with no nutritional value. Although a national get off the couch day sounds great, 1 out of 365 amounts to almost no health benifiets. It really needs to be a 365 day thing. Personally I think the best bet is to SERIOUSLY add a health and fitness unit to SCIENCE class. Not soemthing just randomlly put together to say oh well we tried.

[caesar]

I believe the trans fats are the bad cholesterol that clogs your arteries. We had health and nutrition classes when I went to school. Actually it was part of our PE programs.

[playfullfellow]

A lot of the problem also stems from the fact that people have lost the art of cooking from scratch these days. A lot of meals come from a box or can. You ever read the kind of crap that is in that stuff? You need a bloody science degree to figure out what is on your Campbells Soup these days.So yeah, maybe we are getting too stupid to chose our own food. Maybe cooking classes in school should become mandatory again, for everyone. Maybe parents should teach their kids that Rotten Ronnies doesn't cover all the food groups. Maybe we should go back to the old ways where parents actually teach their kids how to cook and have a family meal.

[Choke]

Banning trans-fats is an excellent idea in my opinion. There's just no justifiable reason to use them instead of more healthy fats.

[Tawasakm]

I'd personally prioritise the banning of tobacco ahead of trans fats. If for no other reason then the smoker can also harm the people around him/her. You can't suffer from passive fat. Unless someone falls on you...

[Choke]

As a former smoker, I have to say that the risk of second-hand smoke damaging your health as a non-smoker is basically non-existent if you don't live with a smoker.

It would be nice to ban all health risks, however...people can't really taste much of a difference between trans-fat and healthy fat, and no one is addicted to trans-fat. Tobacco is completely different, there is no viable alternative, no nicotine delivery system the same (I know this from experience) and people ARE addicted to tobacco, so it's totally ridiculous to try to ban it...they tried that once with alcohol, remember how well that worked?

[Tawasakm]

I'm a former smoker too. I read an interesting book called "The Easy Way to Quit Smoking" by Allen Carr. It enabled me to stop smoking in 10 - 14 days without willpower, denial (like not drinking tea etc) or substitutes. Which I would not have thought possible before reading it.

One of the points it hit on is that smoking doesn't actually calm you (as many suppose). Nicotine is a fast acting drug. The withdrawal of nicotine from the system makes you nervous. When you smoke again the nicotine enters your system and the withdrawal symptoms disappear for a short time therefore creating the illusion that it is calming you.

The book basically removes every percieved benefit/pleasure of smoking. It is all illusion. Even the difficulty in quitting can be removed by altering your understanding. It really works. Not only has it worked for me but for alot of people I know. The author claims he has achieved a 95% success rate (he runs clinics that use the method - and there are plenty around the world).

As to alcohol there are proven benefits to drinking small amounts of it. Why ban it? Even getting drunk every now and then can be beneficial in just letting off steam.

Basically I don't see the two as analagous as I view tobacco as being ONLY harmful no matter the circumstances whereas alcohol is harmful if MISUSED.

I might just be a lonely crusader on this but I regard the prohibition of tobacco as a number one priority. Maybe the government could hand out free copies of the book I mentioned and hopefully dispel 95% of the backlash in two weeks.

I have to say that the risk of second-hand smoke damaging your health as a non-smoker is basically non-existent if you don't live with a smoker.

There are people, children amongst them, who live with smokers. It can happen visiting people etc. The harmful effects of passive smoking are well documented.

[Choke]

Nicotine is a muscle relaxant...that's a fact.

Nicotine triggers the release of dopamine...that's a fact.

I quit through willpower and saying you quit without willpower is ridiculous, unless you weren't addicted in the first place...you had to want to quit and that's willpower.

[Tawasakm]

I quit through willpower and saying you quit without willpower is ridiculous, unless you weren't addicted in the first place...you had to want to quit and that's willpower.

Thats a common reaction from people who haven't looked at it from this perspective. Why don't you read the book and then tell me what you think? Its not really that long. If you still disagree with it afterwards at least you'll know what you are disagreeing with. There are more ways of looking at it then seem apparent.

[Choke]

So you're saying you didn't want to quit? I'm not going to waste my time reading a book I don't need...I quit, I'm not going to start again, I don't need the book. However, to deny FACTS about the effects of nicotine is just silly, plain and simple.

[Tawasakm]

I didn't think I wanted to quite before I read the book.

I'm not going to waste my time reading a book I don't need

Thats not why I was asking you to read it.

However, to deny FACTS about the effects of nicotine is just silly, plain and simple.

Some of the things I'm claiming run contrary to scientific research. Yes, yes I know about stimulants affecting the central nervous system and increasing the effectiveness of certain neuro transmitters - norepinephrine and dopamine.

Which may make my point seem bizarre. But I will swear black and blue that this book enabled to quit like it was nothing - no effort and I didn't have to use substitutes, alter my lifestyle or use willpower. I understand that this sounds off - every other time I tried to quit it was a miserable experience with me fighting a powerful addiction.

Why does the book work? Good psychology I suppose. Even if you have quit I urge you to read it for the perspective it will give you.

I still contend that tobacco does not contain beneficial properties. Although I suppose if someone can keep smoking only occasionally they will get an elevated mood due to the dopamine effect. But what do large doses do? Cause anxiety. What happens to smokers? They smoke more and more. Plus, as I said before, it is not only the consideration of the smoker. They harm others. Passive smoking, smoking while pregnant etc. The massive toll in pain and death later. But I respect your views - they are rooted firmly in current scientific knowlege. I will agree to disagree with you and let this drop.

I guess I've been dragging this off topic for which I apologise to everyone else posting on this thread.

[Choke]

I wasn't trying to make a case for cigarettes as a positive thing.

I found when I quit that once I made the decision to quit, it was pretty easy, but I had to be really committed (the other times I tried it was hard and I failed).

[brianw]

I seen a study online (I will try to find it again) that showed cancer vs smoking. It showed that Japan has one of the highest rates of smoking and one of the lowest rates of cancer.

We are told that the sun is causing the increasing occurances of skin cancer in children. This would mean that places in the third world use more sun block than in North America. At the same time those shots that are given to children (isn't Canada the leader in compliance with these imunizations?) have known carcinigens in them. They also have 3 times the amount of mercury as fish. We are told that this is good mercury (I don't think there is such a thing though). Could this be what is causing our cancer along with other enviromental issues?

(btw I don't smoke, never have and think it is a disgusting thing but I don't fall for all the hype about it either).

We keep putting our "faith" in the government to keep us healthy by mandating certain things. Can we really continue to do this. Look at those tourists down in Australia who tried to pet sharks while sitting on a dead whale. The Austrailian government passed a law against that but if people are that stupid will it really help. You can't legislate out stupidity, you can only create people who are (for the lack of a better word) "dependant" . Will legislation make people more healthy? Will people become more healthy by having a law that says they must be healthy.

Isn't the only real cure a change in attitude to get people more interested in health and exercise?

[Tawasakm]

We are told that the sun is causing the increasing occurances of skin cancer in children. This would mean that places in the third world use more sun block than in North America.

Its not simply a consideration of length of exposure to sun but also the state of the ozone layer between one and the sun - which isn't exactly the same everywhere. Last I heard the largest hole was above Australia. So a person in Australia may be exposed to the sun for a lesser length of time then someone on another continent and still be at greater risk of skin cancer. Wearing sun block is very important in Australia and it has appeared to reduce the incidence of skin cancer.

[Choke]

The government is giving us cancer...right, are aliens helping them with this? What other gems of conspiracy, I mean insight, do you have for us?

A chemical (name escapes me) in tobacco smoke inhibits phlegm production, this makes it impossible to cough out all the tar in your lungs. That tar sticking to your lungs, layer upon layer is what does most of the damage to your cardio-vascular system, IMO. If another chemical could be used to increase phlegm production, it may allow you to cough up the tar and avoid most of the health risks associated with smoking.

[ndpnic]

Amazing how many Canadians refuse to admit that being FAT is unhealthy.

They would rather throw stones at smokers, and ignorantly plod along eating Super sied portions of greasy,fried food.

Ithink the government should step in. Canadians are too gluttonous to stop eating themselves to Obesity!!!!

[brianw]

The government is giving us cancer...right, are aliens helping them with this?

Ask your doctor what goes in the shots! I am not asking you or telling you to believe me. You have a mind of your own don't you? Can't you think for yourself? Do you not even consider all the chemicals being put out (approved by our government) part of the problem? Or is that a conspiracy theory (excuse me insight)?

are aliens helping them with this?

You believe in aliens? Or you have definite proof they don't exist? Are they causing cancer? What do they have to do with this thread? Just a personal jab to boost your ego?

What other gems of conspiracy, I mean insight, do you have for us?

Wouldn't matter to someone like you. Everything you can't understand or don't believe is a conspiracy theory.

If another chemical could be used to increase phlegm production, it may allow you to cough up the tar and avoid most of the health risks associated with smoking.

So sucking on someone else's spit would eliminate all the hazzards of smoking? And you laugh at me?

Its not simply a consideration of length of exposure to sun but also the state of the ozone layer between one and the sun - which isn't exactly the same everywhere.

But in Canada it is affecting children faster than adults. Would that be suggesting that adults have become more immune to cancer or are there other issues that are related? Isn't Canada right up there with sun block usage? Isn't Canada right at the top with imunization compliance? We must have quite a hole over Canada. Japan must have all the ozone over them.

[maplesyrup]

It is obviously in overweight people's interest to lose weight. It's hard to do though when you sit on the couch and watch food filled ads on TV every nite, eh!

[Choke]

So sucking on someone else's spit would eliminate all the hazzards of smoking? And you laugh at me?

If a barrier of phlegm can't be made between the lungs and the tar, you can't cough it out.