Two many Fat Girls

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dall » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:52:13


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?

Yeah, if you eat it long enough you will die.  Say, in 80 or 90 years.

Dally, looking at the big picture

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by TenKMa » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:30:54


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.

Oh I agree that one can make better choices but it is my opinion that
eating healthy costs more than eating unhealthily at nearly all
comparable levels.  I also have done a fair amount of research into it
and am convinced.  I watch students eat top ramen and macaroni and
cheese which is amazingly inexpensive and a crappy diet if that is the
exclusive meal.  I also volunteer at the food bank and watch poor, fat
people get what exists and it is usually starchy and fatty.  There are
frequently no fresh fruits and vegetables but lots of creamed corn,
ravioli, ect.

Now I am very aware that eating out is usually more expensive than
eating at home and that for a lot of people, food costs factor little
into their obesity.  Nonetheless, when one compares apples to apples
(same types of preparation levels and same shopping locations), healthy
food is often more expensive than unhealthy food.  IMO, it is still
cheap when one factors into the equation one's personal health.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> - chris


 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by TenKMa » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:49:05


Quote:

> 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

I had a student that last night had a top ramen and prepackaged macaroni
and cheese.  Total cost supposedly less than $1 but not nearly as
healthy as your meal.  Comparing apples to apples (home prepared foods
to home prepared foods for example) yields a different story.

BTW, your CA. romaine lettuce is a LOT cheaper than what we are getting.

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

> Go match that with a McDonalds "meal."

If your point is that eating at home is cheaper and more healthy than
eating fast food, you will get no argument from me.

Quote:

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


 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Proctologically Violated? » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:04:31

         TenKMan is essentially correct.  It turns out that almost all
vegetables/fruits are significantly more expensive than meat, PER CALORIE.
Asparagus, per calorie, is thru the roof.  There are only a few vegetables
that are substantially cheaper than meat, per calorie: potatoes, corn, rice,
and some beans.  Do the math.
          Now the question is, of the "cheap foods", which are the best?
Clearly more information leads to better/more economical choices, but still,
"good quality" food is by no means cheap. Goddamm salmon costs a fortune.
          But rice is likely the saving grace.  Unbeknownst to most people,
it is in fact a complete protein, just not as dense as meat--which is in
fact a very, very good thing, the opinion of bodybuilding 'roidheads
notwithstanding.  Also, there are some studies floating around suggesting
the protein in rice has some extra benefits, altho they slip my mind.
          Is chicken "healthier" than meat?  Maybe.  But more important than
the type of meat is the *cut* of the meat.  Most meats, chosen properly, can
be quite lean.  Just have to choose yer hormone.
          Excess protein, IMO, is more of a villian than fat.  And not just
my opinion, but of knowledgeable biochemists/physiologists/epidemiologists.
Fat is an easier target, tho.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll


Quote:

> >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 of that group is expensive? Chicken ***s are not at the
> expensive end of the meats and there are a lot of fish that are
> relatively cheap. If you aren't buying prepared foods or precut meats
> designed to look pretty int the package and overcharge as a result,
> healthy eating is no more expensive than 'regular' eating.

> And the more expensive 'steak' fish are by and large the least
> healthy. Hate that, because I love tuna steak and wish it would count
> for something...

> Picking through the few healthy fast food items is also no more
> expensive - it just often isn't what you expect without a score card.
> Know some people that buy the fully loaded McDonalds filet sandwiches
> and think they are eating healthy.

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

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Marshall Lak » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:10:05

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?
> Yeah, if you eat it long enough you will die.  Say, in 80 or 90 years.
> Dally, looking at the big picture

It is my understanding that salmon have the same element in their brains
as cattle which has to do with causing mad-cow disease (whatever it
would be called in salmon).  It is also my understanding that farm-raised
salmon do not have as many restrictions on their diet as cattle.
 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by IMKe » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:27:56


 I also volunteer at the food bank and watch poor, fat

Quote:
> people get what exists and it is usually starchy and fatty.  >

> > - chris

What bothers me here is the statement,  "poor, fat people".     Why do we
provide so much food to poor people that they are fat?    Most folks I see
drawing welfare checks are fat,  Why?    Poor folks ought to be a little on
the skinny side or perhaps my perception of "Poor" is warped.   I once had a
neighbor that was on full welfare.   She was morbidly obese so the county
wired her jaw shut at her request.   She sucked milkshakes through a straw
and got even fatter so next she opted, at tax payer expense to have a
stomach bypass.     Why didn't the Welfare people simply cut back her
allowance.   I think we should weigh in every one collecting welfare, if
they are over the Surgeon General's recommended weight for height ratio then
simply cut back the food stamp allowance.

Fat is caused by eating too much of what ever it is that one eats.

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by HardwareLus » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:13:00



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,

That's just flat out wrong.  That's the same lame argument that motorcycle
riders use to defend non-helmet use.

Fat people are indeed a drain on all of society.  They have higher
incidences of many diseases, not to mention other physical and mental
maladies.  This *directly* affects our tax rates and health insurance costs!

Not to mention the extremely poor example they set for their children.

They indeed really hurt *all* of us in one way or another, not just
themselves.

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:12:40

Thanks for this info.

Quote:
>>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.

> When looking for salmon at places besides the grocery store,
the
> easiest way to check is to ask:

> Is it Atlantic or Pacific?  There is very, very, very little wild
> Atlantic salmon left.  Almost all Atlantic salmon is farmed.

> Pacific salmon can also be farmed, but it is not nearly as
> wide-spread.  Wild salmon is still fished in California and Alaska.

Right, as I found out this afternoon while searching with DSL rather
than dialup. Apparently the cited study compared only farmed Atlantic
salmon and wild Pacific salmon since that is what people are likely to
run into.

Quote:

> Also, if they say it's fresh and it's out of salmon season...it's
> probably farmed.

> Finally, most canned salmon is actually Alaskan, so you are probably
> okay there.  Just look for that Atlantic word.

Are they required to label it as such? That's what I wasn't sure of how
much info is on labels. (I'll look when shopping tomorrow if I remember.)

Quote:

> NOTE - A LOT OF SMOKED SALMON IS ATLANTIC = FARMED.  Unfortunately,
> because smoked is one of my favorites.

Interesting, I would have guessed Alaskan - probably because most salmon
gift packages (=very expensive) are smoked. But that answers my question
if canned salmon is Alaskan, then where does the Atlantic salmon go.

Quote:

> If you want more information on what fish are okay to eat and when to
> eat them, check the following links:

> http://www.seafoodchoices.org/seasense/index.shtml
> http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp

> The Monterey Bay Aquarium link even includes an awesome card you can
> take with you to dine.

Thanks for the links.

Quote:

>>FWIW, McDonald's fish sandwiches
>>have Alaska fish in them (not sure what species, maybe pollock?) - at
>>least in Alaska they do.

McDonalds has a McSalmon sandwich in Singapore and that is from Alaskan
salmon. The normal Filet-o-fish is pollock or hoki, but didn't indicate
source, possibly regional.

Here's an assortment of links - it's more like find one source of info
and a rebuttal from the other side in another link.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june04/salmon_01-26.html
http://northwest-seafood.com/wild_salmon_news.htm
http://www.ems.org/salmon/wild_vs_farmed.html

http://www.farmfreshsalmon.org/mythvsfact.cfm?open2=1&aid=46

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fish/story/0,7369,1119221,00.html
http://www.supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/5391

In the study linked at the top of msg, farmed vs wild seems to be a
confounding of Pacific vs NE Atlantic. Farmed Pacific are rare as are
wild NE Atlantic - so the study didn't include them.

I've included pages with the different kinds of salmon and some pro/con
info. Note that the different species have very different compositions -
at least numerically. As with any study - even with legitimate
scientists - reader has to beware of how the study was conducted.
Noticeably absent from all the charts I saw were standard error bars, so
while the numbers may have been different, they may not have been
statistically different.

Dot

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

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Tom Kea » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:58:47



Quote:
> Oh I agree that one can make better choices but it is my opinion that
> eating healthy costs more than eating unhealthily at nearly all
> comparable levels.

That's because the cheapest foods are those with the most
refined carbohydrates.

Quote:
> I also have done a fair amount of research into it
> and am convinced.  I watch students eat top ramen and macaroni and
> cheese which is amazingly inexpensive and a crappy diet if that is the
> exclusive meal.

Exactly.  Noodles, macaroni, donuts, pancake mix -- lots of
refined carbs.

As one of the working poor, I often have to balance nutrition and
expense during lean times.  Other posts mention salads with fancy
lettuce; I've found homemade coleslaw to be better value, and helps
keep scurvy at bay (I hope).

Oatmeal is a nice, cheap base (although it's probably GMO) to which
to add fresh or canned fruit and yogurt.  Some whole wheat flour
(and, I confess, some white flour), powdered milk, powdered egg,
baking powder and cooking oil, and I can make scrambled eggs and
shingle them on homemade bannock.  Or I can use the same ingredients
to make scratch pancakes, or toss in some raisins and maybe a little
sugar if I've got them, and make scones.

These are all fairly inexpensive, bulk ingredients that store well
and last for long periods.  I'm living in a rooming house, and
although I have my own fridge right now, there was a time when
storing food in the communal, "house" fridge meant risking being
ripped-off.  So, there can be practical reasons for poor people to
avoid obtaining more deterioratable foodstuffs.

Sometimes, when one only has $3.75 in their jeans, a discount
package of day-old donuts can be stretched further than a bunch
of bananas and oranges.

I'm good for 20-30 kilometres of cycling on a cup of oatmeal (cooked,
of course) before I start feeling uncomfortably hungry again.

cheers,
        Tom

--
--   Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Radioactive Ma » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:41:49

Quote:





>>> I was on the bus today and 9 out of 10 of the women on the but was
>>> fat. What the Hell is going on? A fat girl sat down next to me and
>>> she had a fastfood bag in her hand.

>>> THE LAST THING THIS CHICK NEEDS IS A ***ING BIGMAC.

>>> THERES TOO MANY FAT CHICKS AROUND, LOOSE SOME DAME WEIGHT.

>>> It's not that I hate fat girls, some fat girls are cute. It's just
>>> that we're becoming a nation of fat people. And yes I'm kind of fat
>>> too, but atleast I'm trying to loose weight.

>>Gee, I wonder if what you're seeing has anything to do with
>>your mode of transportation? It seems rather obvious to me that
>>people riding the bus would be less fit than those walking or
>>biking to their destinations. I'd also guess that they'd be poorer
>>than those who have a car.

>>My observations are almost the opposite of yours, but this may
>>be a regional thing. Around here the majority of people I see
>>jogging, whether on the streets during the summer or indoors
>>during the winter, are girls. Also, an overwhelming majority of
>>people I see using cardio machines in the gym are girls.

>>Virgo Cluster

>    Since "Obeseity" has been ranked as a national epidemic I
>think his observations are spot on. Not that I have any problem with
>anyone being obese, specially since I'm a recovering fatty myself,
>what I have a problem with is the "new acceptance" of being fat. Seems
>not only has being fat become acceptable it's now almost trendy. I
>can't tell you how many half shirts I've seen on women that 10-15
>years ago wouldn't have thought about exposing their....well you get
>the picture.
>    We have a local semi pro basketball team that has a "dance
>squad". They practice at the "Y" where I spend a good deal of time.
>Now these are young women from late high school to college age,
>dressed in crop tops and spandex pant dancing in front of a crowd of
>occasionally 3000-4000 people. I would say that about 10% of the team
>is obese and another 20-30% are considerblly overweight. Thats what I
>call mainstream fatties.
>    Now like I said I'm not cutting down obese people, as I said I
>used to be one, but I never would have thought about running around
>town shirtless when I was. I didn't even mow my lawn without a "T" and
>I've got a pretty big yard that not to many people can see. But when I
>was fatty I didn't much want to see my fat gut, I'm sure that others
>didn't either.

And that is because you are a man.  There is a certain defined look
that most women have always found desirable in a man.  A man can be
top heavy, but it must be with muscle and not fat.  Any significant
buildup of fat destroys this characteristic.

With women, it is the shape that matters more than the size.  This has
been the case throughout history.  It is the culture that has, from
time to time, changed the desirable size.  With most, but not all,
women, the addition or removal of a little fat from their bodies does
not change the basic hour glass shape, thus men still find the very
same women attractive when they've put on a few pounds as when they
were skinny.