Packaging. Packaging inevitably ends up as liter, in large quantities, polluting ground and water. Had the Environmental movement jumped on this early on, and pushed for a tax on the materials used in packaging all that fast food, there would be less incentive for its spread. Or if govt. decided that costs needed to be offset due to the need to hire more people to pick up the trash, and taxed the fast food joints more, perhaps the spread could have been arrested.
Healthier Food Culture in America
- Thread starter SeaBos
- Start date
This board is dominated by leftist thinking, so it's not surprising that when a topic like this comes up, the perceived problems and solutions are leftist clichés: "Big mean corporations ruin everything"; "people should be forced to eat better." Then couple that to the Millennial notion that somehow what constitutes food can be reinvented to embrace things like kale (a vile weed I wouldn't feed to hamsters) and quinoa (gravel).
Look, there's no big secret here. This isn't terribly complicated. The best place to look for answers is to look at my parents' generation, the Greatest Generation (yeah, I'm that old).
My parents both came from big families, and most of these folks were thin well into their forties and fifties. My mom didn't start to put on weight until around 45 or so, and even then she never got to resemble the grossly obese creatures one finds waddling around the local Wal-Mart. My dad likewise. Almost all of my aunts and uncles were thin - my Uncle Ray was as thin as a rail, and my Aunt Helen, who was a major looker - I've seen pictures of her at age 19 where she looked like Marilyn Monroe - remained thin throughout her entire life, into her sixties.
So what did they do? Did they eat "health" food? Hardly. They ate lots of meat and dairy. They ate bread. They ate processed things - this was the generation that ate Wonder Bread, for crying out loud. And in my case, my family heritage was Polish and Lithuanian, which meant all manner of politically-incorrect food - fatty kielbasa, and pork, and lots of starchy things like potato pancakes and potato pierogies and potato potatoes. All swimming in butter and sour cream. And with dessert. They wouldn't have known what to do with kale and quinoa if they had been given it, except use it as cat litter (come to think of it, maybe they DID know what to do with it).
So what did they do differently, back in the day?
-They ate balanced meals. Some meat, some vegetables, some starches, some dairy. People nowadays ridicule the old "four basic food groups" thing, but there was something to that.
-They ate mostly at home. Going out to eat was something one did once in a while - not four times a week. Which meant that most of their food was homemade, and they knew what was going into it.
-They didn't eat overly-large portions at one sitting. Sure, if you were hungry and wanted more, you took seconds. But otherwise, everything not finished simply went into the fridge as leftovers. That's harder to do in a restaurant setting where you get a garbage-can lid portion size and feel obligated to eat it.
-They weren't constantly eating. They ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner. When else did they eat? They didn't; breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Most of us are in situations in the workplace, at home, wherever, where there is constantly food around, and we are constantly "grazing" on snacks without even realizing it. And food wasn't everywhere; you used to go to a gas station and just get gas for your car. The constant snacking takes in more calories than people realize. Remember that even if food is around, you're under no obligation to eat it because it's there; you can in fact simply not eat food. I'm currently fasting for Lent by taking one meal per day, and most of the time I'm not even hungry. Fasting is a good exercise, because it reminds you that you need far less food than you think you do.
-They walked a lot more. They were much more inclined to take the bus or other public transit, which entails walking at least to a bus stop, and walking around once you arrive at your destination. And they just plain walked - there was a downtown-ish area about a mile from the street in the urban area I grew up in, and my mom would think nothing of walking there and back on a regular basis to run errands. Today, we'll circle around in a parking lot for 15 minutes trying to find "a spot near the door." (This is one area where the Millennials have gotten something right, though not for the reasons they think: the craze for bicycles isn't doing a damn thing about the climate, but it does provide bicyclists with good substitute exercise).
-They did much more manual labor. Their jobs often involved manual work, and when they got home, they did manual labor around the house. Most of us nowadays won't consider a job that we can't do sitting down.
So, to be not obese, emulate the above things: eat balanced meals, not too much food, eat at home as much as you can, only eat when you're hungry, walk or ride, and find some means of exercise to replace the labor-intensive job that you probably aren't doing.
How to make all this part of the "culture," I don't know. But it really is what it takes.
Look, there's no big secret here. This isn't terribly complicated. The best place to look for answers is to look at my parents' generation, the Greatest Generation (yeah, I'm that old).
My parents both came from big families, and most of these folks were thin well into their forties and fifties. My mom didn't start to put on weight until around 45 or so, and even then she never got to resemble the grossly obese creatures one finds waddling around the local Wal-Mart. My dad likewise. Almost all of my aunts and uncles were thin - my Uncle Ray was as thin as a rail, and my Aunt Helen, who was a major looker - I've seen pictures of her at age 19 where she looked like Marilyn Monroe - remained thin throughout her entire life, into her sixties.
So what did they do? Did they eat "health" food? Hardly. They ate lots of meat and dairy. They ate bread. They ate processed things - this was the generation that ate Wonder Bread, for crying out loud. And in my case, my family heritage was Polish and Lithuanian, which meant all manner of politically-incorrect food - fatty kielbasa, and pork, and lots of starchy things like potato pancakes and potato pierogies and potato potatoes. All swimming in butter and sour cream. And with dessert. They wouldn't have known what to do with kale and quinoa if they had been given it, except use it as cat litter (come to think of it, maybe they DID know what to do with it).
So what did they do differently, back in the day?
-They ate balanced meals. Some meat, some vegetables, some starches, some dairy. People nowadays ridicule the old "four basic food groups" thing, but there was something to that.
-They ate mostly at home. Going out to eat was something one did once in a while - not four times a week. Which meant that most of their food was homemade, and they knew what was going into it.
-They didn't eat overly-large portions at one sitting. Sure, if you were hungry and wanted more, you took seconds. But otherwise, everything not finished simply went into the fridge as leftovers. That's harder to do in a restaurant setting where you get a garbage-can lid portion size and feel obligated to eat it.
-They weren't constantly eating. They ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner. When else did they eat? They didn't; breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Most of us are in situations in the workplace, at home, wherever, where there is constantly food around, and we are constantly "grazing" on snacks without even realizing it. And food wasn't everywhere; you used to go to a gas station and just get gas for your car. The constant snacking takes in more calories than people realize. Remember that even if food is around, you're under no obligation to eat it because it's there; you can in fact simply not eat food. I'm currently fasting for Lent by taking one meal per day, and most of the time I'm not even hungry. Fasting is a good exercise, because it reminds you that you need far less food than you think you do.
-They walked a lot more. They were much more inclined to take the bus or other public transit, which entails walking at least to a bus stop, and walking around once you arrive at your destination. And they just plain walked - there was a downtown-ish area about a mile from the street in the urban area I grew up in, and my mom would think nothing of walking there and back on a regular basis to run errands. Today, we'll circle around in a parking lot for 15 minutes trying to find "a spot near the door." (This is one area where the Millennials have gotten something right, though not for the reasons they think: the craze for bicycles isn't doing a damn thing about the climate, but it does provide bicyclists with good substitute exercise).
-They did much more manual labor. Their jobs often involved manual work, and when they got home, they did manual labor around the house. Most of us nowadays won't consider a job that we can't do sitting down.
So, to be not obese, emulate the above things: eat balanced meals, not too much food, eat at home as much as you can, only eat when you're hungry, walk or ride, and find some means of exercise to replace the labor-intensive job that you probably aren't doing.
How to make all this part of the "culture," I don't know. But it really is what it takes.
Much of the globe is having trouble with the population having unhealty eating habits.
There's actually quite a bit to this and it matches my personal experience and that which I've seen in family and friends.
The problem isn't the traditional American diet as much as it is a problem with people eating too much and leading very sedentary lives. If you constantly consume 2500-3000 calories a day and are sedentary, you're going to gain weight.
Jack Brisco
Banned
Yup.
Personally, my attitude is that all food is healthy, because if you don't eat, you won't be healthy. But I try to enjoy everything in moderation. Maybe that's the tack that should have been taken way back when - don't vilify any food, but extol the virtues of eating a varied diet, and eating in moderation. Find a way to expand healthier choices at supermarkets, restaurants, etc.
But the issue here isn't just food, it is exercise or lack thereof. Believe people as late as, say, maybe the 50's were much more physically active than most people today. I walk four miles every weekday morning before breakfast, and walk to other places. I can count on the fingers of both hands the number of people I see walking or running on the path. Can count more riding bikes, but not that many more. And I see most of the same people out there every day. People didn't have the plethora of mechanical and electronic devices to use on the job and at home as they do now. Problem is we, as a nation, physically work less and eat more. So in addition to encouraging people to enjoy all food in moderation, people would also be encouraged to stay active.
I oppose "sin taxes" on foods/non-alcoholic beverages. People just go somewhere else to buy the items. For every measure government takes, the people devise a countermeasure.
Jack Brisco
Banned
If I am not mistaken, while Europeans may not have the same rate of obesity as Americans, they smoke much more than Americans. I don't smoke. Tobacco use affects the body badly, perhaps as badly as obesity. Europeans just trade one for another.
marathag
Banned
Actually, no. But, hey, feel free to tell me what my own FAMILY did.
You know what I remember from the late '50s on into the '70s?
Almost everyone smoked
marathag
Banned
The other difference, was little air conditioning and worse heating.
When I was young, between sweating and shivering, burned off a lot of calories.
Another overlooked point, was many Amphetamines, pills and inhalers, were OTC till the '60s
In 1945 and 1946, the courts upheld Alles’s patent on amphetamine salts, affirming SKF’s monopoly control of oral amphetamine until late 1949.23 With recouped business from infringing firms, SKF’s annual sales of amphetamine tablets (Benzedrine and Dexedrine Sulfate) doubled, from $2.9 million in 1946 to $5.7 million in 1947.24 With AMA approval to advertise amphetamine for weight loss that year, sales climbed further to $7.3 million in 1949, despite competition from methamphetamine-based weight loss and antidepressant products such as Abbot’s Desoxyn and Wellcome’s Methedrine.25 Following expiration of Alles’s patent in late 1949, consumption of pharmaceutical amphetamines in the United States surged. On the basis of voluntary manufacturer surveys, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed 1952 production of amphetamine and methamphetamine salts at nearly quadruple the agency’s 1949 estimate by similar methods.26 Given that SKF amphetamine sales in the period did not grow significantly, virtually all this expansion in amphetamine supply was driven by the marketing efforts of competitors.27
During the 1950s, fierce commercial competition helped drive amphetamine consumption higher still. In a particularly innovative effort to expand medical usages for the drug, in late 1950, SKF introduced a product called Dexamyl, a blend of dextroamphetamine and the barbiturate sedative amobarbital.28 Intended to overcome the unpleasant agitation that many users experienced with amphetamine and to quell anxiety without drowsiness, Dexamyl was marketed with great success for everyday “mental and emotional distress” in general practice and also as a weight-loss remedy striking at the emotional causes of overeating.29 Competing firms answered with their own sedative–amphetamine combinations, such as Abbot’s Desbutal and Robins’s Ambar, blends of methamphetamine and pentobarbital or phenobarbital, respectively.30 Creative amphetamine combination products from both SKF and its competitors proliferated throughout the 1950s.31
According to FDA manufacturer surveys, by 1962, US production reached an estimated 80000 kg of amphetamine salts, corresponding to consumption of 43 standard 10-mg doses per person per year on a total-population basis.32 Thus, in amphetamine alone, the United States in the early 1960s was using nearly as much psychotropic medication as the 65 doses per person per year in the present decade that social critics today find so extraordinary.33 And the 1960s are rightly remembered for excessive minor tranquilizer consumption, around 14 standard doses per person per year on the basis of retail prescription sales.34 It is rarely appreciated that in the early 1960s, amphetamines were actually consumed at a higher rate than tranquilizers. This oversight may be caused by excessive reliance on retail prescription audits (inappropriate for amphetamines when billions were dispensed directly; see the next section) and neglect of the fact that amphetamine obesity medications were just as psychotropic as amphetamine-based antidepressants. Through the rest of the 1960s, FDA estimates of amphetamine production would grow little beyond 8 billion 10-mg doses, implying that consumption of the drug had already reached saturation levels in 1962. This conclusion, based on voluntary FDA production surveys, draws independent support from flat retail prescription sales from 1964 to 1970.35
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/
Jack Brisco
Banned
Yup. Seemed like a rite of passage into adulthood for many teenagers in the 60's was smoking. Started high school in 1968. Saw a number of my fellow freshmen proudly sporting that pack of smokes in their shirt pockets. Always a big crowd at the "smoke tree" right next to the sidewalk. I have never smoked. A good number of my high school graduating class of 1972 has passed away. Undoubtedly smoking hastened the demises of some of them.You know what I remember from the late '50s on into the '70s?
Almost everyone smoked
Jack Brisco
Banned
I'm with you re the paucity of air conditioning, but heating was pretty good, at least for me, and I lived in the Midwest. Very interesting point re the meds.
You know what I remember from the late '50s on into the '70s?
Almost everyone smoked
Well gosh golly gee, I stand corrected. All I have when remembering my personal family history is, you know, my actual memories of things that took place in front of my face. You, on the other hand, have a chart.
I can't be the only person who finds this entire line of argument bafflingly nutty.
(For the record, I'm willing to concede that statistically this is right and that my own memories are anecdotal. But that he's apparently trying to tell me my own family history is just plain...bizarre.)
marathag
Banned
Minnesota.
Coal Gravity furnace, and my room was upstairs, so my heat came thru a 9x12" vent in the floor
Anytime it was below 10-15 degrees, the walls, windows and even a few times, the bedspread would have frost on it. Mom was nice though, would get a couple of hot water bottles before bedtime if it was going to be a cold night.
Today, my Parents would probably get locked up for that- Child abuse.
But at the time, this wasn't uncommon.
Anyway, as I saved some money, got a used Philco Tube Radio that needed some work, a preWar model. After saving some more money, was able to get the parts to fix it, new tubes and a cap or two.
Then in Winter, I'd leave the radio on with low volume, and the heat from the radio kept things warm enough to have no more frost on the walls
marathag
Banned
Wasn't your memories I was denying, just that back then, not smoking was the rare behavior.
I didn't smoke, but in effect, I did, from all the second hand smoke around.
Jack Brisco
Banned
Yeah, we first had a coal furnace, with a stoker, then later went to an oil furnace. My bedroom was also upstairs. Interesting way to use the radio for heat, but indeed, those tubes made a good deal of heat.
Manman
Banned
Honestly the biggest fault is the lack of people working in manual labor and the invention of the car. Now a days you can work without ever leaving an air conditioned room with snacks at hand. Also you can't get rid of cars. While a carless world works in small and connected Europe it would be physically impossible to just walk everywhere do to the distance between places.
In other words blame the size of the USA and the lack of need of manual labor.
In other words blame the size of the USA and the lack of need of manual labor.
Fair point, but it's still ultimately up to the individual to decide whether or not to partake. People can always evade government initiatives, and they'll resent them to the extent they can't. At the end of the day, it's you that decides you are or are not going to eat those Doritos.
It helps if there are ways to build self-discipline, whether by regular fasting, parental guidance, or training - where I think the government can be useful here is in teaching kids at an early age to restrain their eating habits while in school, since that's where they spend most of the day. I realize I'm being vague here - not sure how to make that happen - but at the end of the day it is each person's decision and no one else's.