WestAustinAg said:
And i disagree a bit here. You can't solve the obesity problem without tackling the chemical recompositioning that the big food companies and agri business partners are engaged in. You have to solve the nutritional density that is being stripped from food which is fine to reap bigger profits than would be there otherwise
And we don't get there if we don't have a government that sees itself as an impartial judge/regulator of the industries with which it has oversight.
Look at the real causes of obesity. It isn't just lazy rich people (or poor people). Our food stocks have been manipulated in the labs.
I agree this issue is not because people are "lazy"; however, I do think the average current lifestyle in the US has caused most people to be too sedentary. And movement (not even necessarily exercise) is critical to maintaining not just a healthy body weight, but bone health, muscle health, and even brain health. Americans just don't move enough relative to the amount of food we consume.
But food isn't being "stripped" of nutrients or being manipulated to be less healthy.
No one is engineering Doritos or Little Debbie cakes to have lower nutritional density. These foods just consist of mostly refined carbs, fat, and sugar, which inherently have limited nutritional value.
Now, I'm of the belief that no food (even highly processed "junk" foods) are "bad". But, our bodies only need so many total calories, and we only need a portion of those calories to be fat and sugar/refined carbs.
Doritos and Little Debbie cakes are devoid of nutrients because there is no reason to make them nutritious. That's not the purpose they serve.
If you want protein, you have to eat protein. If you want vitamins and/or fiber, eat fruits and vegetables.
The purpose of ultra-processed foods should NOT be to provide essential nutrients; they are a treat that brings pleasure. There is absolutely no ingredient than can be removed from or added to any ultra-processed food to make it less calorically dense, more satisfying, or "more "healthy". The ONLY option is to eat LESS of these foods in favor of lean protein, fruits, veggies, and other Whole Foods.
Where the govt and medical establishment has failed us is in promoting a food pyramid that recommended very limited "servings" of dairy, meat, poultry, and fish in favor of excessive servings of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta.
Again, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about bread, cereal, rice, and pasta, but if you eat too much refined carbs, you don't get enough protein, you don't feel as full as you would if you ate protein, and you are more likely to eat more calories than you truly need.
I think historically the food pyramid may have come about because protein is expensive. And if you are not eating too many calories for your body and nutrition level, then bread and pasta will not make you fat or obese. But it's VERY easy to over eat these foods and consume too many calories, which will cause weight gain.
Food accessibility and cost is still a real problem. There are rural areas in this country that are food deserts, with limited supply and selection of fresh fruits and vegetable and lean meats. Some of this is also income driven - ultra processed foods are often very cheap, and in poor rural areas, a grocery is not going to carry expensive goods that people don't buy (because cost is a factor). So, there is a chicken and egg problem, no pun intended.
I would also argue that the American palate has changed over the years, both in what we like to eat, and our expectations of convenience. Why else would people spend 2-3x what a meal should cost if made at home and eat out instead? I wouldn't call it laziness, but there is a convenience factor.
l'll use breakfast as an example. Growing up as a kid, we didn't "cook" breakfast. Because we were always in a hurry, breakfast was usually cereal (maybe oatmeal).
How many people actually measure out a serving size of cereal? Even if it's a "healthy" cereal like grape nuts, it's still a calorically dense food. And people are probably consuming 2-3 times a single serving for a single meal.
And the more of the higher calorie, fatty, sweet, sugary foods people eat, the more they want those foods. Because the "healthy" stuff just doesn't taste "the same". But the opposite the also true - the less sugar you consume, the more sensitive your palate will become, and excess sugar won't taste good.
I'll also put blame on food labels. Ultra-processed foods labeled as "low fat", or as having "whole grains" are not necessarily good food choices because they are often still calorically dense. But those labels came about to make cheaper/lower quality food choices (like cereal) look as though they were part of a healthy diet per the food pyramid.
I mean Cheez-It crackers have "whole grain" on the box. So, according to the food pyramid, 6-11 servings of Cheez-It crackers is a good choice. That's 950-1650 calories!
The whole low-fat craze of the 80s and 90s was a joke because, in many cases, fat was substituted with excess sugar. Low fat foods were still high calorie foods. At no point did any group advocate for just knowing and maintaining a healthy caloric intake for your body (the 2000 cal per day recommendation is an absolute joke).
I would also argue that labels like "non-GMO" and "organic" have also done a lot to manipulate, confuse, and literally steal from consumers, often under the guise of trying to make a particular food look "more healthy".
Ugh…I've probably ranted enough for one day. This is just a topic that I have a lot of interest in, for a lot of different reasons.
