Anonymous
06/18/2012 15:00
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....
Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.
I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.
Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D
Yeah, my mom has some size 10 clothing from 30+ years ago that I cannot squeeze into. I'm a size 2 at JCREW.
Jeez, i wonder then what a size 2 looked like 30 years ago?!
Anonymous
06/18/2012 14:41
Subject: I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Actually you do agree with Bloomberg. The law says limits the size of the drinks, but not the number of drinks. So while you can't get super large size drink that has 1200 calories you can get two large drinks that each have 600 calories.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 14:35
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....
Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.
I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.
Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D
Yeah, my mom has some size 10 clothing from 30+ years ago that I cannot squeeze into. I'm a size 2 at JCREW.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 14:26
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Ok 9:50. In my opinion, the best thing the government can do to curb childhood obesity and improve overall health of children is to make it safe enough that parents are not terrified to let their kids play outside unsupervised.
When I grew up, we had one fat kid in out class and on chubby kid, out of 34 students. Every kid I knew spent all waking, non school hours outside, biking, climbing trees, playing tag, ball, skateboarding, etc without a grown up in sight. We had to be called in to eat, and then it was outside again as quickly as possible.
We have been fortunate to live on a few military bases, where the kids are able to have this type of freedom. Not a fat kid anywhere. And before you say it is because the military families are super healthy, they are not. We eat as much food on the go, junk and quick processed meals as the next person, but the kids spend all their time playing outside. In our current civilian neighborhood, the kids play outside constantly, and they are all fit. We have lived in other civilian neighborhoods where you see the minvan pull into the garage, the door shuts, and you hardly see or hear a kid for days. Guess what, there are chubby and fat kids in those neighborhoods.
Kids playing outside are having fun, exercising, burning calories. They are too busy having fun to spend the day grazing and snacking, and they are more willing to eat good foods because they are HUNGRY when they do eat.
I see it with my own kids. When the weather is bad and they are spending all day doing inside activities they want to snack more and eat more junk than when they are running around outside.
So I say the govt needs to make outside a safe place for kids to run free, lock up pedaphiles for life after one offense, keep the loiterers off the streets and step up patrols in rough neighborhoods so that poor kids can safely play outside too.
I also advocate doing a better job teaching nutrition in public schools and creating yummier, healthier school lunches.
These things will make a difference, where this joke of a soda tax will not.
I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of playing outside. Physical activity should not happen in daily gym class where a teacher will crack the whip and make sure every kids runs 20 laps. It should happen in play, as it has for children since the dawn of time. But you should do your research. Crime rate is down, and that includes crimes against children. Most neighborhoods today are much safer places than they were 20 years ago. Incessant media coverage of the few rare instances where children are harmed by strangers and unrealistic societal expectations towards parents to be their children's perfect playmate, body guard and cheering squad, 24 hours a day, every day, is what is creating the current climate where parents feel that it is no longer safe or desirable to just let their children play outdoors.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 14:02
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
They need to dramatically change the concept of "gym" in school. It should be about physical fitness, not putting on gym shorts and participating (or not) in some game. Kids should be running every gym class, and there should be gym five days a week for 45 minutes. And yes, breakfast and lunch should be low calorie and healthy.
As for how to pay for this, there should be a crap tax. Buy crap, pay a 10% tax for it. And there should be a fine if your kid is some percent overweight. You have to enroll in some remedial food management program. Parents are ordered to enroll in anger management therapy when they're convicted of assault. There certainly should be some penalty for letting your children (whose diets are completely within your control) get obese.
As for how to pay for this, there should be a crap tax. Buy crap, pay a 10% tax for it. And there should be a fine if your kid is some percent overweight. You have to enroll in some remedial food management program. Parents are ordered to enroll in anger management therapy when they're convicted of assault. There certainly should be some penalty for letting your children (whose diets are completely within your control) get obese.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 13:53
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, forget about Bloomberg.
How, if at all, would you use public policy to try to stem the obesity epidemic in the United States? If you think we should do nothing, what would you propose to do to handle the health care costs for the obese, which are SIX TIMES the health care costs of the non-obese? Given that the obese are predominantly low income, is it even possible to think that they should pay for their higher health costs? Should parents be allowed to let their children become obese?
In short, what solutions would you have, or why would you propose nothing (public policy wise) should be done?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs-americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/
I would vastly, vastly improve the food served at public schools. This would be particularly helpful for lower income students as they consume much more of their calories at scchool than higher income students. After that, I'd make a huge push to build more parks (particularly in low income neighborhoods) and give subsidies for gym memberhsips (a tax write-off perhaps).
Building more parks is a nice idea, but land is very expensive. You have to find it (not easy) and then develop it as a park instead of income-producing housing in an area where (traditionally) there are more people than places to put them. One reason there are usually more "project" housing and very few parks. Sad, but true.
FBO
06/18/2012 13:50
Subject: I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Whats wrong with a size 10?
Anonymous
06/18/2012 13:47
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....
Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.
I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.
Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D
I agree that she was not today's size 10, but she was not as thin as the majority of today's celebrities seem to be. Before someone posts a very thin pic of her, sure, her weight fluctuated as everyone's does, but she was by all accounts not a waif.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 13:42
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Okay, forget about Bloomberg.
How, if at all, would you use public policy to try to stem the obesity epidemic in the United States? If you think we should do nothing, what would you propose to do to handle the health care costs for the obese, which are SIX TIMES the health care costs of the non-obese? Given that the obese are predominantly low income, is it even possible to think that they should pay for their higher health costs? Should parents be allowed to let their children become obese?
In short, what solutions would you have, or why would you propose nothing (public policy wise) should be done?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs-americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/
I would vastly, vastly improve the food served at public schools. This would be particularly helpful for lower income students as they consume much more of their calories at scchool than higher income students. After that, I'd make a huge push to build more parks (particularly in low income neighborhoods) and give subsidies for gym memberhsips (a tax write-off perhaps).
Anonymous
06/18/2012 13:31
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In my mom's generation, my body type would have been considered quite average. Today, I am considered skinny. People often comment how "unhealthy" I look. I've been called anorexic, too-thin, vain, and in need of gaining 10 pounds to fatten up so that I'm "healthier" "especially if I get sick". It's ridiculous. And don't get me started on vanity sizing.....
Just the opposite. There were no tiny celebrities like Angelina Jolie in the 50s. When someone that skinny came along, she was dubbed "Twiggy"! Women were thin, yes, but not skinny. Look at Marilyn Monroe. She was considered an ideal beauty.
I HATE vanity sizing. People often throw out "Marilyn was a size 10." No. Not in today's world.
Marilyn Monroe's measurements:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D
Anonymous
06/18/2012 11:14
Subject: I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
1. End corn subsidies
2. Mandate Phys Ed
3. Create an independent agency to oversee consumer food policy. The USDA cannot reasonably advocate for food producers and food consumers at the same time, and should be independent of lobbyist influence.
2. Mandate Phys Ed
3. Create an independent agency to oversee consumer food policy. The USDA cannot reasonably advocate for food producers and food consumers at the same time, and should be independent of lobbyist influence.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 10:54
Subject: I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Interesting point. How about a 2 pronged approach? Yours, and keep the soda tax, using the money collected specifically to target the obesity problem. Your choice. Money into better foods in schools, programs to promote better eating habits, $ into better school facilities for kids to play, wherever research has proven it will do the most good. I could support that.
Not the PP, but I would support this type of two pronged approach for sure. It's obvious there needs to be some change in public policy but it seems impossible to make changes.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 10:26
Subject: I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Interesting point. How about a 2 pronged approach? Yours, and keep the soda tax, using the money collected specifically to target the obesity problem. Your choice. Money into better foods in schools, programs to promote better eating habits, $ into better school facilities for kids to play, wherever research has proven it will do the most good. I could support that.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 10:18
Subject: Re:I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Ok 9:50. In my opinion, the best thing the government can do to curb childhood obesity and improve overall health of children is to make it safe enough that parents are not terrified to let their kids play outside unsupervised.
When I grew up, we had one fat kid in out class and on chubby kid, out of 34 students. Every kid I knew spent all waking, non school hours outside, biking, climbing trees, playing tag, ball, skateboarding, etc without a grown up in sight. We had to be called in to eat, and then it was outside again as quickly as possible.
We have been fortunate to live on a few military bases, where the kids are able to have this type of freedom. Not a fat kid anywhere. And before you say it is because the military families are super healthy, they are not. We eat as much food on the go, junk and quick processed meals as the next person, but the kids spend all their time playing outside. In our current civilian neighborhood, the kids play outside constantly, and they are all fit. We have lived in other civilian neighborhoods where you see the minvan pull into the garage, the door shuts, and you hardly see or hear a kid for days. Guess what, there are chubby and fat kids in those neighborhoods.
Kids playing outside are having fun, exercising, burning calories. They are too busy having fun to spend the day grazing and snacking, and they are more willing to eat good foods because they are HUNGRY when they do eat.
I see it with my own kids. When the weather is bad and they are spending all day doing inside activities they want to snack more and eat more junk than when they are running around outside.
So I say the govt needs to make outside a safe place for kids to run free, lock up pedaphiles for life after one offense, keep the loiterers off the streets and step up patrols in rough neighborhoods so that poor kids can safely play outside too.
I also advocate doing a better job teaching nutrition in public schools and creating yummier, healthier school lunches.
These things will make a difference, where this joke of a soda tax will not.
When I grew up, we had one fat kid in out class and on chubby kid, out of 34 students. Every kid I knew spent all waking, non school hours outside, biking, climbing trees, playing tag, ball, skateboarding, etc without a grown up in sight. We had to be called in to eat, and then it was outside again as quickly as possible.
We have been fortunate to live on a few military bases, where the kids are able to have this type of freedom. Not a fat kid anywhere. And before you say it is because the military families are super healthy, they are not. We eat as much food on the go, junk and quick processed meals as the next person, but the kids spend all their time playing outside. In our current civilian neighborhood, the kids play outside constantly, and they are all fit. We have lived in other civilian neighborhoods where you see the minvan pull into the garage, the door shuts, and you hardly see or hear a kid for days. Guess what, there are chubby and fat kids in those neighborhoods.
Kids playing outside are having fun, exercising, burning calories. They are too busy having fun to spend the day grazing and snacking, and they are more willing to eat good foods because they are HUNGRY when they do eat.
I see it with my own kids. When the weather is bad and they are spending all day doing inside activities they want to snack more and eat more junk than when they are running around outside.
So I say the govt needs to make outside a safe place for kids to run free, lock up pedaphiles for life after one offense, keep the loiterers off the streets and step up patrols in rough neighborhoods so that poor kids can safely play outside too.
I also advocate doing a better job teaching nutrition in public schools and creating yummier, healthier school lunches.
These things will make a difference, where this joke of a soda tax will not.
Anonymous
06/18/2012 10:11
Subject: I don't agree with Bloomberg, but there just shouldn't be food made with more than 1,000 calories
Anonymous wrote:Read some history and see where controlling everything to manipulate individual behavior eventually gets you. Not a good place to end up.
But see, the government already is manipulating consumer behavior. Right now it's in favor of the big food companies. Why do you think the crap food is SO cheap? It's subsidized. Make it fair. Subsidize other fruits and vegetables just as much as you subsidize corn.