Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution premier

[Howell]

For anyone interested:

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution airs 8PM tonight on ABC.

http://abc.go.com/shows/jamie-olivers-food-revolution

 

[udaman]

Well it's F'in better than the other F'kin loudmouthed, F'ed up Brit- Gordon Ramsey.

Yeah, the biggest thing missing from Obamacare, that could significantly cut healthcare costs for everyone, would be a national anti-obesity program that everyone is required to partake in on the same level of the idiotic 'forced' insurance requirement. Same criminal penalties! That and forcing the corporate food giants, not just medical establishment, to provide healthier food and rid the nation of the 'toxic' food now in all supermarkets (<watch jtr go off on that one ), whether or not the population wants it < think about the death threats they'd get for that :boom:

 

[LunarMist]

I was hoping there would a nice homogeneous food by now that would contain all necessary nutrients. Remember space food sticks?

 

[ddrueding]

If all health care costs are paid for by the state, then all unhealthy activity is a crime against the state.

No, I don't like it either. Such BS.

 

[LunarMist]

Healthy food is so boring, but you have to eat it after the surgeries. Priorities change just like that. Everything clogs up after 50. Then you regret food choices back in the 80s.

 

[ddrueding]

Healthy food is so boring, but you have to eat it after the surgeries. Priorities change just like that. Everything clogs up after 50. Then you regret food choices back in the 80s.

My grandfather went in for some ridiculous heart surgery when he was 60-ish. The docs said "No salt, no sausage, no bacon, etc, etc, or you will die." His response? "Whatever". He lived independently and happily for another 20 years before dying in his sleep. I'll take one of those.

 

[Howell]

He lived independently and happily for another 20 years before dying in his sleep. I'll take one of those.

Your gf didn't eat the crap convenience food we have for the majority of his life either.

 

[sechs]

Your gf didn't eat the crap convenience food we have for the majority of his life either.

http://www.babybites.info/2010/03/03/1-year-happy-meal/

 

[time]

That's kind of horrifying.

 

[fb]

I was hoping there would a nice homogeneous food by now that would contain all necessary nutrients. Remember space food sticks?

Pizza?

If all health care costs are paid for by the state, then all unhealthy activity is a crime against the state.

It really doesn't matter if it's public or private money, it's always the public that pays in the end.

 

[Stereodude]

If all health care costs are paid for by the state, then all unhealthy activity is a crime against the state.

You've figured it out the end game of the legislation. It's got very little to do with health care and plenty to do with controlling the populace.

 

[time]

Normally, I'd assume that was just another acerbic comment from Stereodude. You're being sarcastic, right?

 

[Stereodude]

Normally, I'd assume that was just another acerbic comment from Stereodude. You're being sarcastic, right?

No, I'm dead serious. Why would you think I'm joking? Look at what California and New York have been up to in terms of smoking, transfats, salt in food, etc.

 

[Striker]

You're right, we should just get rid of all those laws and ones making any drugs illegal and should stop requiring prescriptions.

 

[jtr1962]

No, I'm dead serious. Why would you think I'm joking? Look at what California and New York have been up to in terms of smoking, transfats, salt in food, etc.

I'll agree the latest push to take ALL salt out of restaurant is misguided. However, there's nothing good about smoking, transfats, or for that matter high-fructose corn syrup. I'm glad we've gotten rid of transfats. I hope we do the same with HFCS, and any other junk currently in food which doesn't belong there. As for smoking, last I checked it was still legal around here. Sure, there are restrictions where you can smoke. And I'm glad there are. I don't care to involuntarily "share" someone else's cigarette via second-hand smoke.

All that being said, the current focus solely on diet is shortsighted in the extreme. We keep blaming diet for obesity but that's not the entire picture. Granted, certain things like high-fructose corn syrup have no redeeming value and don't belong in any foods, period. But in the end the primary reason for being overweight is calories consumed is more than calories burned. Children ( and adults ) simply don't move around enough to burn the number of calories their body tells them to consume. In order to not get fat, a sedentary person would need to live on 1800 calories a day. When you try to do that, your body tells you it's starving. That's why "diets" never work long term unless they include increasing activity level.

What we need to do is get activity levels up to match the 3000 or so daily calories an average adult feels satisfied with. The biggest thing we can do is to stop relying on mechanized transportation, especially the car which essentially offers door-to-door transportation. And stop busing kids when they live 10 blocks from school. I never saw so many school buses as in the last ten years. Why? Is there some reason kids these days can't walk 10 blocks or even a mile to school when it was common back when I was that age in the 1970s? And crime was actually worse back then. Stop coddling kids and making everything far too easy for them. This is why they're fat and getting fatter.

Adults should set an example too by using mechanized transportation only as a last resort. I won't even think of going by any means other than my feet unless the trip is over about 3 miles each way. My mom has walked 7 miles round trip to doctor's appointments. Barring legitimate physical disabilities, there is no good reason why we need to bus kids 10 blocks, or even 30 blocks. Those kinds of distances are perfectly walkable, or perhaps bikeable if schools had provisions for safe indoor bike storage. Maybe instead of an individual mandate "Obamacare" should include steep discounts for health insurance if you're in good health.

What it comes down to are the three main reasons for high health care costs are lawsuits, overuse of prescription drugs, and the unhealthy lifestyles of a good portion of the American public. Until these things are somehow addressed, all the rest is just a band-aid. Tort reform, plus barring advertising of prescription drugs ( as is done in every other country except the US and New Zealand ) would be a good start.

 

[fb]

You've figured it out the end game of the legislation. It's got very little to do with health care and plenty to do with controlling the populace.

I don't think there's a big chance/risk of that. It's never happened in any country before, not even in ones that provide totally free health care for their citizens.

 

[ddrueding]

It really doesn't matter if it's public or private money, it's always the public that pays in the end.

There is only one alternative. To be OK with people dying untreated. I don't think the vast majority of the population is OK with that.

 

[Stereodude]

You're right, we should just get rid of all those laws and ones making any drugs illegal and should stop requiring prescriptions.

Maybe you can explain to my why the same people who want to outlaw smoking cigarettes because it's bad want to legalize marijuana.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Because mj is a proven nausea reducer, than can help stimulate appetite in chemo patients? Relieving intraocular pressure in patients suffering from glaucoma?

Does tobacco do any of that? It's medical benefits seem to be limited to weight loss and a helpful serving of all types of cancer.

 

[Stereodude]

Because mj is a proven nausea reducer, than can help stimulate appetite in chemo patients? Relieving intraocular pressure in patients suffering from glaucoma?

Does tobacco do any of that? It's medical benefits seem to be limited to weight loss and a helpful serving of all types of cancer.

I didn't say anything about medical marijuana use.

 

[fb]

There is only one alternative. To be OK with people dying untreated. I don't think the vast majority of the population is OK with that.

Well, there's another alternative - we could/should treat people even if they live unhealthy lives. Otherwise we could just as well stop treating people who have car accidents because they drove to fast or were drunk, high, talking in the phone or whatever.

 

[ddrueding]

Well, there's another alternative - we could/should treat people even if they live unhealthy lives. Otherwise we could just as well stop treating people who have car accidents because they drove to fast or were drunk, high, talking in the phone or whatever.

There are a lot of fundamental freedoms here that I like. One of them is the freedom to be stupid. The only reason you are free to be stupid is that you shoulder the responsibilities of your actions yourself. As soon as that responsibility is assumed by the system, that same system will begin to deny you those freedoms. Economically, there is no other way.

I would rather be free and responsible than not free and protected.

 

[Striker]

Maybe you can explain to my why the same people who want to outlaw smoking cigarettes because it's bad want to legalize marijuana.

Link?

 

[Stereodude]

Link?

To which? Liberals are the same people who want to legalize Marijuana, and liberals want to stop everyone from smoking cigarettes. They want to start taxing legal pot to make up their budget shortfall.

My question is, where will anyone be able to smoke their legal pot?

 

[jtr1962]

My question is, where will anyone be able to smoke their legal pot?

In the legislative chambers of course. Judging by some of the laws being passed, it looks like they're already smoking some strong stuff. :drinka:

 

[Striker]

To which? Liberals are the same people who want to legalize Marijuana, and liberals want to stop everyone from smoking cigarettes. They want to start taxing legal pot to make up their budget shortfall.

My question is, where will anyone be able to smoke their legal pot?

All of it, just because a republican says it's so doesn't make it so.
Death Panel anyone?

 

[Stereodude]

All of it, just because a republican says it's so doesn't make it so.

So you don't believe that people are trying to legalize marijuana in California? And you don't believe that California has passed increasingly stringent cigarette legislation? Or, are you simply disputing the fact that both are done by groups of people who are liberal?

Death Panel anyone?

Uh, there will definitely be people who decide who and who doesn't get treated. If you don't want to call it a death panel, that's great, but there are certainly boards who will decide who gets treated.

 

[udaman]

Maybe you can explain to my why the same people who want to outlaw smoking cigarettes because it's bad want to legalize marijuana.

Well smoking is more of an health hazard than weed; more toxins, cancer causing agents in a processed commercial cigarette. In fact, some of the compounds in MJ are believed to help prevent lung cancer...so say you live in California's toxic death trap polluted air environs, u just might save your life if U smoke pot. lol!

Because mj is a proven nausea reducer, than can help stimulate appetite in chemo patients? Relieving intraocular pressure in patients suffering from glaucoma?

Does tobacco do any of that? It's medical benefits seem to be limited to weight loss and a helpful serving of all types of cancer.

Well if it were only many types of cancer, it's deadly consequences are more related to effects on the heart...heart disease being the #1 killer, of course obesity >heart disease < back on topic maybe???

Link?

^right here , standing and accounted 4 ...my mother smoked only during college, just one pack per week, until she quite cold turkey in her early 40's, much later in life she nearly paid the price with her life. Now with one lung, practically no ability to taste food, formerly one of her joys was cooking/baking, gone from mouth cancer...a mere corpse of herself before the lung cancer...yeah, I'll vote for making cigarettes illegal for sure! Anything Calif does to reduce consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products is fine with me, tax the shit out of them, they are a huge health insurance cost factor, much as obesity is becoming.

To which? Liberals are the same people who want to legalize Marijuana, and liberals want to stop everyone from smoking cigarettes. They want to start taxing legal pot to make up their budget shortfall.

My question is, where will anyone be able to smoke their legal pot?

Come to Cali when it's passed SD. conservatives want to stop everyone from smoking too, maybe not all of them, but same as many 'conservatives' are pro-choice (uh oh, lets not get on a divergent trail there, LM will cry ). I'm so 'liberal' I'd advocate sterilization (castration, why waste many times more money on being 'nice' to them and doing chemical castration, cut their damned balls off!) of 2nd time rape conviction criminals. I'm so 'liberal'...meh, you don't want me to go on a rant do U ?

In the legislative chambers of course. Judging by some of the laws being passed, it looks like they're already smoking some strong stuff. :drinka:

Or inhaling some pretty good snow *inside* the office while watching the lack of global warming, keep them snowed in, lol.

So you don't believe that people are trying to legalize marijuana in California? And you don't believe that California has passed increasingly stringent cigarette legislation? Or, are you simply disputing the fact that both are done by groups of people who are liberal?
Uh, there will definitely be people who decide who and who doesn't get treated. If you don't want to call it a death panel, that's great, but there are certainly boards who will decide who gets treated.

Pretty big difference btw legalizing MJ and restricting where people can smoke cigarettes where there is *known* health risks from 2nd hand smoke. I'm quite sure if MJ was legal like hard liquor is (which btw, alcoholic abuse is far worse of a problem...doubt fully legalized MJ would ever surpass booze as the most dangerous/widespread substance of abuse...then again, it could happen, and Apple might rule the world in a decade or so ), that should studies show 2nd weed smoke to be *as* dangerous as cigarette smoke, same restrictions on *where* it's legal or illegal to partake will apply.

Though I can see that certain strains of MJ known to cause paranoia could be a problem. But considering how full on whacked some of the people I've seen under the influence of alcohol can get, split personalities, uninhibited they can get very aggressive/violent, paranoid psychosis just the same if not worse than any 'stoners' I've seen. (meth/speed addicts excluded, never been around any of them).

Say, going OT, did U know that chick from the Vampire movies, Kristin Stewart, all of 19, is supposed to be a super toker... > celebritystoners.com

Hey, the show on HBO, 'Weeds' is supposed to be pretty good...I've only seen the bus stop ad campaign from last Fall, of Mary Louise Parker plastered everywhere in LA, never actually seen the show

 

[Handruin]

Howell, you should have know that trying to introduce people to a TV show would result in politics and arguing.

:-o

 

[udaman]

We could use a new food revolution, but how to go about it?

Latest news, back OT w/respect to obesity:

Compulsive eating shares addictive biochemical mechanism with cocaine, heroin abuse: study

March 28, 2010 In a newly published study, scientists from The Scripps Research Institute have shown for the first time that the same molecular mechanisms that drive people into drug addiction are behind the compulsion to overeat, pushing people into obesity.

http://www.physorg.com/news188995945.html

Here's the actual scientific papers published...uggh, not of the simpleminded

Dopamine D2 receptors in addiction-like reward dysfunction and compulsive eating in obese rats


http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.2519.html


Junk food addiction may be clue to obesity: study


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100328/hl_nm/us_obesity_junkfood

Bingeing on high-calorie foods may be as addictive as cocaine or nicotine, and could cause compulsive eating and obesity, according to a study published on Sunday. The findings in a study of animals cannot be directly applied to human obesity, but may help in understanding the condition and in developing therapies to treat it, researchers wrote in the journal "Nature Neuroscience."


The scientists also found decreased levels of a specific dopamine receptor -- a brain chemical that allows a feeling of reward -- in overweight rats, as has been reported in humans addicted to drugs, the article said.
"Obesity may be a form of compulsive eating. Other treatments in development for other forms of compulsion, for example drug addiction, may be very useful for the treatment of obesity," researcher Paul Kenny of The Scripps Research Institute in Florida said in a telephone interview.
Obesity-related diseases cost the United States an estimated $150 billion each year, according to U.S. federal agencies. An estimated two-thirds of American adults and one-third of children are obese or overweight.
For the study, Kenny and colleagues headed to the grocery store.
"We basically bought all of the stuff that people really like -- Ding-Dongs, cheesecake, bacon, sausage, the stuff that you enjoy, but you really shouldn't eat too often," he said.
They also bought healthy foods and devised a diet plan for three groups of rats.
One group ate a balanced healthy diet. Another group received healthy food, but had access to high-calorie food for one hour a day. Rats in the third group were fed healthy meals and given unlimited access to high-calorie foods.
The rats in the third group developed a preference for the high-calorie food, munched on it all day and quickly became obese, Kenny said.
The rats in the experiment had also been trained to expect a minor shock when exposed to a light. But when the rats that had unlimited access to high-calorie food were shown the light, they did not respond to the potential danger, Kenny said. Instead, they continued to eat their snacks.

^New study, smoking or vapping MJ will cause obesity in rats via the dreaded "munchies" (which would be fine for my mother who is suffering from geriatric wasting syndrome , only MJ has *side effects* such as increase heart rate, vaso constriction, increased BP...so yeah, other than it would potentially cause another heart attack and kill her, I would have her eating brownies and cookies right now ...need more research into med MJ to see if althernative drugs can be developed with fewer side effects...if that make me a liberal, I'll proudly wear the label).

 

[fb]

There are a lot of fundamental freedoms here that I like. One of them is the freedom to be stupid. The only reason you are free to be stupid is that you shoulder the responsibilities of your actions yourself. As soon as that responsibility is assumed by the system, that same system will begin to deny you those freedoms. Economically, there is no other way.

I would rather be free and responsible than not free and protected.

But you treat obese people in USA today? Maybe you don't have a health care insurance. But people who have are paying for the treatment of obese people with higher insurance rates and so on.

 

[Striker]

So you don't believe that people are trying to legalize marijuana in California? And you don't believe that California has passed increasingly stringent cigarette legislation?

Passing stringent cigerette legislation isn't the same as banning all smoking.

Or, are you simply disputing the fact that both are done by groups of people who are liberal?

If there are in fact people trying to do both these things it doesn't mean they're the same people or that all liberals believe both should be done. Should I believe all conservatives are the same? Are you all involved with the group that wanted to attack that police officers funeral?

Uh, there will definitely be people who decide who and who doesn't get treated. If you don't want to call it a death panel, that's great, but there are certainly boards who will decide who gets treated.

link? Just because you or Palin say it's so doesn't make it true. Something that seems to be hard for Republicans to understand.

 

[Stereodude]

link? Just because you or Palin say it's so doesn't make it true. Something that seems to be hard for Republicans to understand.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not true. Someone somewhere is going to decide who gets treated and who doesn't. They're going to decide which treatments are covered and which ones aren't. I don't need to cite sources. It's common sense. You simply can't give everyone a blank check for end of life care. What do you think the Medicare Advisory Panel does?

You can't really be naive enough to think that everyone is going to get unlimited health care can you?

 

[jtr1962]

Someone somewhere is going to decide who gets treated and who doesn't. They're going to decide which treatments are covered and which ones aren't. I don't need to cite sources. It's common sense.

There are organizations that already do this. They're called insurance companies. They're far worse than any government "death panel" would ever be. Not only do they often not cover things they claim they do as part of your policy, but they'll drop you altogether once you start costing them too much money. Funny but I always thought the very reason for having insurance in the first place was to cover you in case of unexpected, costly illness. If they can't even do that, then why bother having insurance in the first place?

You simply can't give everyone a blank check for end of life care.

Nor should you. It makes zero sense to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just to prolong someone's life by a few months, especially when it often is a very poor quality of life. Just because we can medically do something doesn't mean we should. At some point when the outlook is bleak and the treatment options at best prolong the inevitable, we're better off just letting the person die with dignity regardless of their age. On the flip side, I'm all in favor of spending money on people likely to make a full recovery and live another 5 or 10 good years, even if they're already 110. I just don't think we should put money into lost causes. A good portion of what is spent on medicine nowadays is done in a futile effort to extend life by mere months or even weeks. Chemotherapy is one of the biggest wastes in that regard. I don't know a single person who had chemo that didn't die anyway within months, if not sooner. In fact, I think the chemo in many cases killed them faster than the cancer would have if left untreated.

The fact is limited funds are going to force us to take a hard look at where we spend money and what we get for it. It will also force us to examine people's lifestyles. If we want to get costs under control so everyone can get treated when the prospects of recovery are good, we need to reduce the number of people who are unhealthy solely because of their lifestyle choices. Whether we use a carrot or stick approach, or some combination, is an open question but it needs to be done. I see no good reason why I should foot the bill for the medical care of a person who smokes, takes either illegal or prescription drugs, or is obese and sedentary. These are lifestyle choices which artificially inflate the cost of caring for them. Maybe we just shouldn't cover people who refuse to participate in their own health. Bottom line is if you take reasonably good care of yourself, you'll likely be healthy and active well into your 80s or 90s. When the body finally gives out, it's often only a matter of weeks or less in a hospital, not decades of chronic, expensive care as is often the case with those who fail to take care of themselves.

 

[Stereodude]

There are organizations that already do this. They're called insurance companies. They're far worse than any government "death panel" would ever be. Not only do they often not cover things they claim they do as part of your policy, but they'll drop you altogether once you start costing them too much money. Funny but I always thought the very reason for having insurance in the first place was to cover you in case of unexpected, costly illness. If they can't even do that, then why bother having insurance in the first place?

I disagree. The gov't will do a far worse job just like they do with pretty much everything.

Regardless, this charade is only the first step. You'll be required to buy insurance, and the insurance companies have their hands so tied by the legislation they won't be able to make any money, so they're going to fold either going bankrupt or abandoning the business and in a few years time the gov't will come in blame the insurance companies and implement stage 2, a single payer (gov't) system because no one will be left to offer insurance.

 

[ddrueding]

For some strange reason I'm not worried at all about the insurance companies making money...

 

[jtr1962]

Regardless, this charade is only the first step. You'll be required to buy insurance, and the insurance companies have their hands so tied by the legislation they won't be able to make any money, so they're going to fold either going bankrupt or abandoning the business and in a few years time the gov't will come in blame the insurance companies and implement stage 2, a single payer (gov't) system because no one will be left to offer insurance.

They should have went with single payer to start with. If the government is going to force me to buy insurance one way or another ( and I'll agree that it has no business doing this ), then to me single payer makes a lot more sense. The other way I pay insurance company, insurance company makes ~20% profit, insurance company pays doctor. I'm essentially paying 20% extra so a private company can make a profit acting as a middle man, delivering no essential services on its own. The government on the other hand just takes out what is needed to cover their overhead.

Medicare/Social Security is relatively well run, with most of the money being paid out in benefits. No reason that model couldn't be used for a single payer system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of mandatory insurance. But if it's something those in charge decide we should have, then I'd want the government to be my insurer. The 30 year experiment privatizing everything isn't having that great results. Privatization works fine for consumer goods. It doesn't work well for essential services. Private companies can be far more inefficient and wasteful than government. The difference is private firms call the waste "business travel" and "executive bonuses".

 

[Sol]

I don't know a single person who had chemo that didn't die anyway within months, if not sooner.

I do, I remember the make a wish foundation gave him an Amiga 500, the chemo's given him a decade in remission and counting...

Not that I don't agree with some of what you're saying I just don't think we should start packing people off to the glue factory because you don't know anyone who survived cancer...

In the end I think the answer to the problem of health care is to make it in the interests of the insurers to try to ensure that people are healthy. Prevention is generally a lot cheaper than cures so shouldn't insurers want to pay for regular checkups for their customers? Would dietitians on staff maybe reduce costs in the long term? I don't mean, do this or we won't cover you type stuff but a general reduction of ignorance should result in some general improvement to health. (And a lot of people are pretty ignorant of how to keep themselves healthy and by no means can I entirely exclude my self from that group).

Not, of course, that I know how to really bring this state of affairs in to being. (Plus I get a triple idealist notion score for using the phrase "long term" when talking about corporations)

 

[Stereodude]

For some strange reason I'm not worried at all about the insurance companies making money...

You will be when they cease to exist. :scratch:

 

[Stereodude]

Medicare/Social Security is relatively well run, with most of the money being paid out in benefits. No reason that model couldn't be used for a single payer system.

You've got to be kidding me. The system are horrific.

There's a reason why doctors don't want to accept Medicare / Medicaid. They get paid peanuts, have all sorts of nutty paperwork requirements, and it becomes not worth it.

Social Security is a national embarrassment. Perhaps you missed the fact that Social Security will start paying out more money this year than it takes in ( link ). They didn't save the surplus from all the prior years. They spent it and wrote themselves IOU's. The gov't wants to pretend that they can start cashing those IOU's and they'll be ok for another decade or two. I must have missed the surplus of money in the budget they'll cash those IOU's against.

Lets face it, by the time you retire there won't be any money in it. That's well run? :scratch: