Two many Fat Girls

Two many Fat Girls

Post by David Kerbe » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:51:13




...

Quote:
> I don't think a "nice salad with romaine lettuce, spinach, carrots,
> and tomatoes" would be of the same quality as a Big Mac.  Quality
> wise, I'm guessing the salad would be much better.

> Even still, if you need to eat on the cheap there are other options
> available.  There are plenty of vegetables and fruits that are very
> inexpensive (bananas come to mind).  One doesn't have to eat fresh
> servings of fish and various other organic produce to really be
> healthy.  There are much more frugal options available to folks.

> People who say they can't eat healthy or can't be healthy because it
> costs to much are just looking for another excuse to justify their
> unhealthy lifestyle.

Yep.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam:  remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by TopCouns » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:01:32

Quote:
>It's just that we're becoming a nation of fat people.

Yeah, and it's kind of a regional thing.  Much worse in the Midwest, say, than
out here in the California coastal cities.  Last time I visited Chicago I was
shocked at the amount (and extent!) of obesity.

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:10:29

Quote:



>>Salmon's not good for you either unless it's wild.

> Yeah, I read recently that the farm-raised salmon is fed a lot of ***
> fish that's loaded with PCBs. Does anyone have more info on this topic?

http://SportToday.org/

Google on the following:
salmon wild farmed nutri

I've been looking for pages with .edu or .gov endings, rather than .com,
but many of these look fairly reliable.

Most of my info is from tv (read: info from seafood marketing) but I can
probably find the studies to look it up. Alaska salmon is wild and
generally good for you. I believe it's the stuff in the school lunch
menus. I think, but not sure, most canned stuff is likely farmed salmon
which is what all the fuss is about. However, some of our salmon is
canned also, so not sure now to distinguish. I'm sure there's something
on the label, since that would be a big selling point. I'll try to find
out more. As you might expect, it's a *really big* issue up here to
generate more markets for our seafood. FWIW, McDonald's fish sandwiches
have Alaska fish in them (not sure what species, maybe pollock?) - at
least in Alaska they do.

Dot
had to remove some of the ng since my system wouldn't let me post that
way (2 ng was the max it would take)

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Lynd » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:13:43

Quote:





>> > One thing I have noticed is that it costs a hell of a lot more to
>eat
>> > healthy than it does to grab that 'big mac' that nobody needs.

>> Only if you eat out all the time.  At home, it's usually the opposite,
>> and people usually don't eat as much when they make it themselves.
>> How much you eat is the main problem anyway, not what you eat.

>Actually not true even at home.  Try making a nice salad with romaine
>lettuce, spinach, carrots, and tomatoes.  Then eat fish once a week and
>maybe pasta and grilled chicken ***s.  It is more expensive to eat
>healthy than cheap and fatty.

What I had last night:

  15 pieces frozen cheese ravioli    $1.00
   sauce (homemade)                    $1.00
   1 cup fresh romaine                   $0.15
   1 T caesar salad dressing           $0.12
    6 oz. French Merlot                   $1.75
                                                    -------
    Total                                         $4.02

71g carb, 27g protein, 21.5g fat (without the wine)

Go match that with a McDonalds "meal."

Lyndon
"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!"  --US Olympic Track Coach
Brooks Johnson

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:16:29

Quote:

>There are plenty of vegetables and fruits that are very
> inexpensive (bananas come to mind).  

For curiosity, how much are fruits and vegetables elsewhere?

In Alaska, we're running about $1.50-$2.00/lb for many common ones
(e.g. broccoli) and some higher, unless on sale, but seldom much less
than $1/lb. Tomatoes are usually $2-$3/lb, unless on sale, iirc.
Bananas are the exception at $.99 regular. Prices don't come down much
either when local produce (doesn't include bananas ;) is available.
These are the plain vanilla varieties. Organic costs only a little more,
maybe 10%, at least in the ones I've seen. I buy what's on sale.

We can get frozen fish (whiting, other types are comparatively
expensive) not too expensively but don't remember price. Low-end meat
cuts on sale tend to be $1.50-$3/lb, normally $2.50-$4, I think (I
usually buy a value pack, cut into small individual servings or make
stew or casserole, freeze, and eat for a couple months, so don't go by
that section often). Milk's $4+/gal.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by TopCouns » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:25:06

Quote:
>In Alaska, we're running about $1.50-$2.00/lb for many common ones
>(e.g. broccoli) and some higher, unless on sale, but seldom much less
>than $1/lb. Tomatoes are usually $2-$3/lb, unless on sale, iirc.

Alaska has 2 problems with fresh produce that we don't have throughout much of
the lower 48:  (1) Shipping costs for everything, since you can''t economically
grow hardly anything up there; and (2) The "Carr" food monopoly -- when I was
in AK, this retailer controlled well over 50% of the chow, and maybe even a far
higher portion.

Certainly you are paying more than we do here in CA, where lots of this stuff
originates, but the price difference is probably not as much as you might
think.

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Curtis L. Russel » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:41:35

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:49:21 -0500, David Kerber

Quote:

>Try iceberg lettuce instead of romaine,
>don't pay extra for organic, and you can eat your menu pretty
>economically.

Iceberg lettuce is not even close to being equivalent to romaine in
value. May as well eat styrofoam. OK, maybe not styrofoam. But close.

OTOH, while romaine may be relatively expensive compared to iceberg,
not many people would go broke on the real difference between romaine
lettuce  or spinach and iceberg lettuce.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by MJuri » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:59:42

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:38:52 +0000, The Golden Path

Quote:


>>        Since "Obeseity" has been ranked as a national epidemic I
>>think his observations are spot on.

>As the only sane individual posting to rec.running, I think I should
>chip in here.

>Sure, tubbies don't look too nice, not do they seem to be able to
>participate in sporting activities at the level they would choose, but
>don't you think you're being just a ***sy bit harsh?   The only
>person tubbies are really hurting is themselves.   From a heath,
>social or employment perspective, tubbies do not do as well as their
>skinnier cousins.   Surely that's punishment enough?

>As a life-long skinny, I can't conceive of the difficulties faced by
>those on perpetual diets or the obese.   Life must be hell, 'cause at
>the end of the day they're fighting themselves.   I can't imagine what
>that does to you psychologically, but it can't be good.   Hell, if
>wearing crop-tops or lycra make their lives a little more bearable,
>then good luck to them..

        For the most part I agree, except for the displaying of
anatomy that simply isn't all that attractive. If someone chooses to
be overweight then more power to them, however making a display of it
simply seems a bit over the top. Let's say someone has a huge booger
*** from there nose and find's that somehow attractive, Should we
all say "Wow that's to bad they don't want to wipe their nose. Seems
perfectly ok though that they sit down next to me in a restuarant and
eat. I'm ok with that" I'm sorry I guess I see some things as
appropriate and some not. Of course what I find appropriate is 100%
based on my opinion and beliefs and in no way means everyone else
should feeel the same.  

Quote:

>At the end of the day it comes down to us, as a society, failing to
>sell the benefits of a healthy, exercise-based lifestyle, to the
>young.   If our love for our children is expressed in buying them a
>PS/2 complete with games package, rather than spending time with them
>on the athletics track, should we really be surprised when they turn
>into balloons?

>I see fat kids as a reflection of poor parenting.   I'd be *very*
>surprised if the parents of fat kids agreed.

        In a sense I agree, yet parents can't be everywhere all of the
time. Here's a little story. My kid is a bit overweight, not huge but
definately on the plump side. We do what we can at home, good meals
take her to the "Y", enroll her in classes, sports etc whatever we can
to encourage an active lifestyle.
        Moving on. At my childs school we are allowed to buy lunches
on a credit card system. Last year same school we did this on a
monthly basis allow our child, not 12 years old, to buy lunches and
everymonth we'd renew the card. Seemed to work fine with only a couple
of times were she "overused" and ended up bring a lunch for the last
couple fo days of the month. This year we had the option to buy for
the entire year, probably a bad parenting mistake, but we took the
option. Just found out a week ago that she had used the entire years
supply and now has no money left for lunch. Yes you can say we are bad
parents and you'd have strong point by pointing out we didn't check
regularly to see how things were going etc. No problem with taking teh
blame there. The problem I have is that we were not allowed to specify
what the money could be used for. Instead of having teh money used for
the standard school lunch the money was used for "junk food" Chips,
pop, ice cream bars etc. Yes again bad parenting probably, but when
you ask your child what tehy had for lunch and they... bend the
truth... ok lie there ass off... One would assume that a decent lunch
was eaten. However almost any child given the opportunity of
Bag-O-Chips and "standard lunch" goes bag-0-chips. Again yes hind
sight is 20-20 and given the choice again I'd be a bit more
inquisitive and bit less trusting.
        None the less guess who gets to eat bag lunches with, carrots
and broccoli and fat free turkey sandwiches for the rest of the year.

~Matt    

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by MJuri » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:03:30

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:47:53 +0000, The Golden Path

Quote:

>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:38:23 -0800, "Lunafate"

>>One thing I have noticed is that it costs a hell of a lot more to eat
>>healthy than it does to grab that 'big mac' that nobody needs.

>Utter nonsense.   You can base a diet on rice, beans, vegetables and
>soya protein at far less cost than that of a fast-food based 'diet'.

Not to mention Subway is Approximately the same cost as a Super Sized
Big Mac meal. And alot healthier. Produce is not all that expensive
around here either. Stay away from the prepackage, precut pre anything
veggies and fruits and I would bet that a healthy diet is very
comparable to an unhealthy one.

~Matt

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Kerry Wils » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:38:05


Quote:
> [snip]
> At the end of the day it comes down to us, as a society, failing to
> sell the benefits of a healthy, exercise-based lifestyle, to the
> young.   If our love for our children is expressed in buying them a
> PS/2 complete with games package, rather than spending time with them
> on the athletics track, should we really be surprised when they turn
> into balloons?

> I see fat kids as a reflection of poor parenting.   I'd be *very*
> surprised if the parents of fat kids agreed.

It is not only a failure of parents, but even more so of the schools.
The importance of physical education has been consistently played down
over the years, and such physical education as has been promoted is
largely organized around competitive sports.  Almost entirely lacking
has been cultivation of fitness pursuits and healthy lifestyle habits,
especially diet and exercise.  The dividends of our failure to
incorporate this instruction in the curriculum of every child is
plainly evident in our population.

IMO, physical education ranks with english and math as the most
fundamental of subjects and should be required of all students.  But I
somehow doubt we shall ever see the day when this is implemented by
our schools.  So for the forseeable future, the best I can say is...
get used to seeing the fat.  It will be everywhere you look...

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Achtung! Spitfire » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:43:13

Quote:

>    For the most part I agree, except for the displaying of
>anatomy that simply isn't all that attractive. If someone chooses to
>be overweight then more power to them, however making a display of it
>simply seems a bit over the top. Let's say someone has a huge booger
>hanging from there nose and find's that somehow attractive, Should we
>all say "Wow that's to bad they don't want to wipe their nose. Seems
>perfectly ok though that they sit down next to me in a restuarant and
>eat. I'm ok with that" I'm sorry I guess I see some things as
>appropriate and some not. Of course what I find appropriate is 100%
>based on my opinion and beliefs and in no way means everyone else
>should feeel the same.  

Google 'John Stuart Mill'.   Look up his essay 'On Liberty'.   Says it
all.

Quote:
>    In a sense I agree, yet parents can't be everywhere all of the
>time. Here's a little story. My kid is a bit overweight, not huge but
>definately on the plump side. We do what we can at home, good meals
>take her to the "Y", enroll her in classes, sports etc whatever we can
>to encourage an active lifestyle.
>    Moving on. At my childs school we are allowed to buy lunches
>on a credit card system. Last year same school we did this on a
>monthly basis allow our child, not 12 years old, to buy lunches and
>everymonth we'd renew the card. Seemed to work fine with only a couple
>of times were she "overused" and ended up bring a lunch for the last
>couple fo days of the month. This year we had the option to buy for
>the entire year, probably a bad parenting mistake, but we took the
>option. Just found out a week ago that she had used the entire years
>supply and now has no money left for lunch. Yes you can say we are bad
>parents and you'd have strong point by pointing out we didn't check
>regularly to see how things were going etc. No problem with taking teh
>blame there. The problem I have is that we were not allowed to specify
>what the money could be used for. Instead of having teh money used for
>the standard school lunch the money was used for "junk food" Chips,
>pop, ice cream bars etc. Yes again bad parenting probably, but when
>you ask your child what tehy had for lunch and they... bend the
>truth... ok lie there ass off... One would assume that a decent lunch
>was eaten. However almost any child given the opportunity of
>Bag-O-Chips and "standard lunch" goes bag-0-chips. Again yes hind
>sight is 20-20 and given the choice again I'd be a bit more
>inquisitive and bit less trusting.
>    None the less guess who gets to eat bag lunches with, carrots
>and broccoli and fat free turkey sandwiches for the rest of the year.

Matt, you kinda proved my point there.   No-one suggested being a
parent was easy, nor do I have all the answers, but the fundamental
importance of bringing a child up to have an understanding of the
relevance of a healthy diet to their future wellbeing is a given as
far as I'm concerned.
 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by masterlifecomparisonzfgr » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:57:46

I agree... at work in meetings my boss (a chick, well more like a full
blown turkey) and a couple of cow(orker)s can not even speak because
their mouths are full of alfredo fetuchinnii
 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Harold Buc » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 07:05:14

Quote:

> The problem I have is that we were not allowed to specify
> what the money could be used for. Instead of having teh money used for
> the standard school lunch the money was used for "junk food" Chips,
> pop, ice cream bars etc.

It bugs the hell out of me that the schools sell junk food like this. A
lot of them have big deals with soda companies so they can make extra
money. It bugs the hell out of me that the schools aren't getting enough
money from the government and they feel the need to do this.

Of course, this is America, where we'd much rather spend money on
prisons later than on the schools, which we need to keep people out of
prison, now.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
 and party every day.
 Then it was every other day. . . ."
      -Homer J. Simpson