[HT cOz]

Is anything more subsidized than corn??? I doubt it.

[macrojack]

Petroleum, maybe?

[TRADERXFAN]

We do live longer, but we get sicker at a younger age, so we live with disease for a greater portion of our lives than our grandparents did.

geezer,
One way to limit sugar intake is to tax the sh!t out of it.  Make it ridiculously expensive to eat crap foods and it will definitely affect people eating it. 

Also, for obesity, you have a point that total calories has increased, but my point was that cholesterol and saturated fats have NOT increase, in fact have decreased dramatically in consumption.  So the hypothesis that these 2 things "caused" heart disease or diabetes is just flat out wrong (not congruent with the data).

For all of your supposed "research", your proposed solution only makes more severe problems. So please stop and consider how "taxing the shit" out of anyone, for anything, is a good thing? Taxes assessed should be very carefully and judiciously applied only to balance the minimum costs necessary to keep essential government functions. It is an extremely DANGEROUS shortcut to use the tax hammer to solve society's problems, even if you are correct.  If you are correct about both the sugar being the problem, and other government recommendations being bogus, then you are already acknowledging the governmental ineffectiveness at managing others health. Its using a cluster bomb approach when there are vastly different trends on different groups.

Food scarcity is already a major problem for low socioeconomic status groups. Taxing the shit out of it is going to inordinately impact those people, of this you must agree? 

And since you have taken this subject into the political realm, this thread should be binned. (If it wasn't recognized as political before this point, it should be now with the advocation of taxation.)

Real STUDIES need to be done, and you should find those and cite to support your point. These may reveal a REAL causality and correlations. Based on your simplistic approach, I could easily make a case to say something like look, the average temerature has been increasing since the 50's and therefore THAT must be the cause, or the rise of microwave use, TV use, home video game systems, hydrogenated oils, etc.  You haven't even cited the statistics on the diseases you are claiming are resulting, for your comparative time periods. 

Regardless to all of the above, a 50% increase doesn't really strike me as extreme.  Notable, but not extreme.

Regards

[Tyson]

For all of your supposed "research", your proposed solution only makes more severe problems. So please stop and consider how "taxing the shit" out of anyone, for anything, is a good thing? Taxes assessed should be very carefully and judiciously applied only to balance the minimum costs necessary to keep essential government functions. It is an extremely DANGEROUS shortcut to use the tax hammer to solve society's problems, even if you are correct.  If you are correct about both the sugar being the problem, and other government recommendations being bogus, then you are already acknowledging the governmental ineffectiveness at managing others health. Its using a cluster bomb approach when there are vastly different trends on different groups.

Food scarcity is already a major problem for low socioeconomic status groups. Taxing the shit out of it is going to inordinately impact those people, of this you must agree? 

And since you have taken this subject into the political realm, this thread should be binned. (If it wasn't recognized as political before this point, it should be now with the advocation of taxation.)

Real STUDIES need to be done, and you should find those and cite to support your point. These may reveal a REAL causality and correlations. Based on your simplistic approach, I could easily make a case to say something like look, the average temerature has been increasing since the 50's and therefore THAT must be the cause, or the rise of microwave use, TV use, home video game systems, hydrogenated oils, etc.  You haven't even cited the statistics on the diseases you are claiming are resulting, for your comparative time periods. 

Regardless to all of the above, a 50% increase doesn't really strike me as extreme.  Notable, but not extreme.

Regards

Clearly you didn't read my next post where I retracted that suggestion and suggested removing the agriculture subsidies instead.  Regardless, the thread needs to move off the political aspects and back to the nutrition aspects.  It had started doing that pretty well, until you came along.

[JDUBS]

Real STUDIES need to be done, and you should find those and cite to support your point. These may reveal a REAL causality and correlations. Based on your simplistic approach, I could easily make a case to say something like look, the average temerature has been increasing since the 50's and therefore THAT must be the cause, or the rise of microwave use, TV use, home video game systems, hydrogenated oils, etc.  You haven't even cited the statistics on the diseases you are claiming are resulting, for your comparative time periods. 

Regardless to all of the above, a 50% increase doesn't really strike me as extreme.  Notable, but not extreme.

Regards

This was exactly my point.

-Jim

[Tyson]

Hmm, I guess you missed the part where I said that meat, butter, eggs, etc were likely not the cause since they trended down, but that other things MIGHT be if they trended up and they needed to be INVESTIGATED.  You accuse me of confusing association with causality, and now I accuse you of NOT BEING ABLE TO F'ING READ.

[JDUBS]

Ok, yes, I guess I misread, "It seems very, very  likely  that sugar is one of the primary drivers of our current health  problems  and they rest of the "positive" changes we made to the other  aspects of  our diet have not protected us at all.  If those other  changes did not  protect us, then they are likely worthless."

My appologies.

[TRADERXFAN]

Clearly you didn't read my next post where I retracted that suggestion and suggested removing the agriculture subsidies instead.  Regardless, the thread needs to move off the political aspects and back to the nutrition aspects.  It had started doing that pretty well, until you came along.

To clean it up, just edit that garbage out. Then I couldn't have read it and responded to it.
The argument for, or against, subsidies, is political. Don't you get it?

You were much more absolute in your phrasing on the original post that initiated this thread, then you claim to be now.
 " Now, one thing I've not touched on that almost certainly drives  these  bad outcomes in a big way is SUGAR."

"the data is NOT AMBIGUOUS, IT IS VERY CLEAR. "


I thank you for sharing some of the other information about the different cholesterols. I will look into it. I hadn't seen anyone break it down into that detail before...

[Tyson]

Yes, it's not ambiguous that the advice the USDA gave us is wrong.  How hard is that to grok?

[brj]

Canola is GM.

I guess I'd never explicitly thought about it, but I had more or less mentally equated organic canola oil to pure non-GM rapeseed oil, but I suppose you could have a GM organic product.  I don't have any at the moment, but I'll have to take a closer look the next time I'm in the store.

John C., thanks for the suggestion.  I've seen coconut oil in the store and know it to be one of the more heat-stable oils, but my understanding is that the extraction methods that involve lesser amounts processing leave quite a bit of taste, which may or may not integrate well with the certain foods.  Guess I'll have to pick some up and experiment.

Avacado oil looks interesting as well.  Similar MUFA/PUFA/SFA profile to olive oil and a smoke point even higher than coconut oil.

[macrojack]

The suggestion to bin this thread is a ridiculous over-reaction. The word tax is not inherently political. If I say, I paid my taxes early this year, I am simply making a statement that has no more political implication than a tale of how I go about cleaning my records.

The tax the "shit out of it" comment was vague, non-partisan and really just a cliche.

At the heart of Tyson's point is the reality that policies have been created or altered over the years in such a way that the public has been deliberately misled as to what is good for them to eat -- and what is harmful. Likewise, if incentives are to be placed at all, it would be better if they steered consumers in a positive direction and served the greater good rather than the greater profitability.

What we see happening to recording quality and music choices at the hands of bean counters also happens to food production and edible product boundaries at the hands of similar (or the same) corporations. In our culture, every value has been subordinated to profitability. We are collectively corrupt.

[bummrush]

All it really gets down to is serving size.Anybody  look at what a cup of food is lately?

[macrojack]

Today's REFDESK Quote of the Day:

"To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals." - Benjamin Franklin

[TRADERXFAN]

It was said:

Yes, it's not ambiguous that the advice the USDA gave us is wrong.  How hard is that to grok?

and
" Sorry I  ranted a bit here, if the data were unclear or ambiguous, I  could  understand (maybe) the recommendations the government has been  handing  out, but the data is NOT AMBIGUOUS, IT IS VERY CLEAR.  If I can  see this  from looking at the data for 10 minutes, why can't they?    Especially  since IT IS THEIR JOB!  I can only conclude that the people  making these  recommendations are either stupid, incompetent, or have a  hidden agenda."

I did not see where you actually quoted what the USDA said, that you claimed was wrong...
I actually looked up what the USDA recommends, and it seems you have set up the USDA with a straw man argument.

From the nutrition guidelines promulgated in 2010.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm

These are the 2 overarching recommendations that summarize the whole document.
 
"Maintain calorie balance over time to achieve and sustain a healthy weight. People who are most successful at achieving and maintaining a healthy weight do so through continued attention to consuming only enough calories from foods and beverages to meet their needs and by being physically active. To curb the obesity epidemic and improve their health, many Americans must decrease the calories they consume and increase the calories they expend through physical activity.
•
focus on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages. Americans currently consume too much sodium and too many calories from solid fats, added sugars, and refined grains.2 These replace nutrient-dense foods and beverages and make it difficult for people to achieve recommended nutrient intake while controlling calorie and sodium intake. A healthy eating pattern limits intake of sodium, solid fats, added sugars, and refined grains and emphasizes nutrient-dense foods and beverages—vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products,3 seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, and nuts and seeds."

So they ACTUALLY RECOMMEND LIMITING SUGAR, despite your claims to the contrary.

I think your real enemy is the media. They oversimplify complex health issues, and distill down to near meaningless sound bites. Then they get repeated over and over, often extrapolated to situations  that weren't applicable to the actual studies. The public ends up mis-informed. 

-I am not that passionate about the subject of health.  The area I am passionate about is the nanny state.  So I still object to the political aspects those in this discussion have waived off as unapplicable. The reason for the restriction of political posts is that it leads to inflammatory conflicts. I just don't think people are looking at these aspects with the objectivity to see it for what it is.

To answer Macrojack,
I would agree that the thread doesn't need to be binned, it should just be edited to tone down the political aspects of this question. Food and food choices isn't inherently political. It is just the state we are in in the US.  The tone that was set from the very first post was political.

If the whole aspect of criticism of the USDA was left out of it, if the whole aspects of taxes and subsidies was left out of it, you could have had the same discussion of the subject without the political overtone. For example "it is not the meat consumption, it is not the vegetable consumption, it is the  sugar consumption that leads to diabetes" or something like that.

However, the distinction for what is political is whether or not someone's statement is advocating for or against a government role, law, policy, etc.

So I agree mentioning the word taxes is not political. But when you advocate a tax, it definitely is. If you discuss an incentive, and if you imply government to be the one to provide  such, then you are making a political statement. It isn't overtly partisan, but it needn't be.  When the writer making a statement feels it is the government's job to do, or not to do something, that is the clue that you are thinking along political grounds.
 

[Tyson]

My entire point of the analysis was that its not saturated fat or cholesterol intake driving heart disease and diabetes and that we should look elsewhere for the culprit.  I then proposed sugar as a likely culprit and specified why it was likely, and in some detail. 

[Zero]

This thread makes me want a hamburger...  and a frosty.

[JDUBS]

My entire point of the analysis was that its not saturated fat or cholesterol intake driving heart disease and diabetes and that we should look elsewhere for the culprit.  I then proposed sugar as a likely culprit and specified why it was likely, and in some detail.

Where is this analysis and / or detail?  Why is sugar the "likely" culprit?  I.e., please define "likely".

Jim

[John Casler]

I guess I'd never explicitly thought about it, but I had more or less mentally equated organic canola oil to pure non-GM rapeseed oil, but I suppose you could have a GM organic product.  I don't have any at the moment, but I'll have to take a closer look the next time I'm in the store.

John C., thanks for the suggestion.  I've seen coconut oil in the store and know it to be one of the more heat-stable oils, but my understanding is that the extraction methods that involve lesser amounts processing leave quite a bit of taste, which may or may not integrate well with the certain foods.  Guess I'll have to pick some up and experiment.

Avacado oil looks interesting as well.  Similar MUFA/PUFA/SFA profile to olive oil and a smoke point even higher than coconut oil.

I cannot say how tasty Coconut Oils are as I don't fry things much anymore except maybe to sautee a few onions (in butter) for my Saturday Morning eggs.  So I haven't invested in any coconut oils.

That said, I tried steaming my scrambled eggs this morning and microwaved a couple small baked red potatoes, and with a little ketchup, and a guacamole concoction (Mayonaise/Double Virgin Olive Oil/Chopped Onions/Avocado/Feta Cheese) I use.  Also had some non-fat cottage cheese for a little extra protien.

It was exceptionally delicious, nutritious, and probably had limited "oxidized cholesterol", while rich in the good fats and oils. 

Looks like the frying pan may be gathering a bit more dust.

[Tyson]

JDUBS, see my post on ldl earlier in the thread.  As for the other points, I can only repeat myself so much.

[lonewolfny42]

I guess this would not be considered ....healthy eating....