How to get fat without even trying

Peter Jennings aired a very interesting show on ABC this evening titled "How
to get fat without even trying".
Here's a summary of the show. It dealt with the food industry and it's
contributions to the overweight epidemic in America.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html

So are we automatons who buy everything the TV tells us to buy?
Not me. I don't buy anything, literally or figuratively, until
I've checked it out for myself.

Beverly wrote:

Peter Jennings aired a very interesting show on ABC this evening titled "How
to get fat without even trying".
Here's a summary of the show. It dealt with the food industry and it's
contributions to the overweight epidemic in America.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html

Its almost impossible to escape, even if you turn the tv off. It is on
billboards, in magazines, in store displays. The kids would have to be
raised by mormons in the country with no electricity to not be exposed. I
think that parents should take more of the responsibility in making sure the
kids understand nutrition and consequences.

--
Email me at:
perpleglow(AT)comcast.net
http://community.webshots.com/user/perpleglow


"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message
...
In article , Ignoramus25226
wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html

Without even seeing this show, we know who is to blame.

America and it's health care system and grain agri-mega-culture bosses
and lobbysists and food processors and advertising agencies have
brainwashed a passive, lazy public into thinking they need a lot of
things to make them feel adaquate and happy.

Most of the things are chemical or nutritional trash, trans fatty
acids, sugars and starches and the garbage the packaging companies to
created in the form of wrappings to clutter up dumpsites or burn in
incinerators and generate toxic smoke.

We are the envy of the world and the clothes horses for extra large
sizes and candidates for angioplasty.

Our TV screens are cluttered up with ads for medications to make us
bounce along a beach, hand in hand, and the horrible possible side
effects must also be prominently displayed on the screen.

People think the new RAW food is oh so trendy when man subsisted on it
originally. Others aren't happy with the existing food oils, they have
to genetically modify rapseed with no concern for the fact that
changing one molecule can effect the others, but they don't know just
how. Kids think the best machines are the vending monsters in their
schools, funded for athletics by the soft drink companies.

The final insult is the legion of supermodels flaunting stick slender
figures floated by blobs of silicone as they prance down runways clad
in clothes that don't fit anyone but anorexics.

Peter Finch had the right idea in the Paddy Chayefsky movie about TV,
"Network".

Turn it off, turn it all off NOW!

(Shall I tell you how i really feel ? :-)

--
Diva
********
There Is No Triumph Without Loss!

In article , Ignoramus25226
wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html

Without even seeing this show, we know who is to blame.

America and it's health care system and grain agri-mega-culture bosses
and lobbysists and food processors and advertising agencies have
brainwashed a passive, lazy public into thinking they need a lot of
things to make them feel adaquate and happy.

Most of the things are chemical or nutritional trash, trans fatty
acids, sugars and starches and the garbage the packaging companies to
created in the form of wrappings to clutter up dumpsites or burn in
incinerators and generate toxic smoke.

We are the envy of the world and the clothes horses for extra large
sizes and candidates for angioplasty.

Our TV screens are cluttered up with ads for medications to make us
bounce along a beach, hand in hand, and the horrible possible side
effects must also be prominently displayed on the screen.

People think the new RAW food is oh so trendy when man subsisted on it
originally. Others aren't happy with the existing food oils, they have
to genetically modify rapseed with no concern for the fact that
changing one molecule can effect the others, but they don't know just
how. Kids think the best machines are the vending monsters in their
schools, funded for athletics by the soft drink companies.

The final insult is the legion of supermodels flaunting stick slender
figures floated by blobs of silicone as they prance down runways clad
in clothes that don't fit anyone but anorexics.

Peter Finch had the right idea in the Paddy Chayefsky movie about TV,
"Network".

Turn it off, turn it all off NOW!

(Shall I tell you how i really feel ? :-)

--
Diva
********
There Is No Triumph Without Loss!

I felt that they made some interesting points -- especially about
marketing to children. They also pointed out the conflict of interest
within USDA. The Department of AGRICULTURE is supposed to promote
agriculture and one way that they do this is via price supports. Why
are corn and soybean production supported this way while the production
of other foods are not? Why are the folks who are in charge of
promoting agriculture telling us what we should eat (by way of the food
pyramid)? Why isn't the FDA or Health and Human Services or whatever
doing that? Wouldn't the folks who are responsible for our health (as a
nation) be a more appropriate choice for that duty?

Anyway, it did bring up more good points that I expected it to. Before
watching the program I thought that it would have "we're all victims"
theme but I didn't feel that way at all after watching the program.

On 12/8/2003 8:40 PM, Beverly wrote:
Peter Jennings aired a very interesting show on ABC this evening titled "How
to get fat without even trying".
Here's a summary of the show. It dealt with the food industry and it's
contributions to the overweight epidemic in America.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html



--
jmk in NC

I agree. However, I am not a parent but I am assuming that it is hard for a
parent to monitor their kids 24/7 though.

--
Email me at:
perpleglow(AT)comcast.net
http://community.webshots.com/user/perpleglow


"jmk" wrote in message
...
Well, part of the point that they were trying to make is that kids don't
understand marketing (that someone is trying to get them to buy
something, may not be telling the whole truth, may be making exagerated
claims, etc.). There is no debate over the fact that kids don't
understand this. The debate is over when they do. Kraft Foods says 6
yo. Others think that it's a lot closer to 10 yo.

"Last year there were more than 2,800 new candies, desserts, ice creams
and snacks on the market — but only 230 new fruit or vegetable products."

The show (and article at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html) went on
to say:

"The average American child sees 10,000 food advertisements a year on
television alone, and most of those advertisements are for fast food,
sugarcoated cereal, soft drinks and candy, and other foods dense in fat
and calories."

So yes, parents need to (1) set a good example and (2) help their kids
to understand it but there is a limit to what kids of different ages
will be able to understand (not exactly rocket science, I know).

On 12/9/2003 1:30 AM, Perple Gyrl wrote:
Its almost impossible to escape, even if you turn the tv off. It is on
billboards, in magazines, in store displays. The kids would have to be
raised by mormons in the country with no electricity to not be exposed.
I
think that parents should take more of the responsibility in making sure
the
kids understand nutrition and consequences.

--
Email me at:
perpleglow(AT)comcast.net
http://community.webshots.com/user/perpleglow


"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message
...

In article , Ignoramus25226
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html

Without even seeing this show, we know who is to blame.

America and it's health care system and grain agri-mega-culture bosses
and lobbysists and food processors and advertising agencies have
brainwashed a passive, lazy public into thinking they need a lot of
things to make them feel adaquate and happy.

Most of the things are chemical or nutritional trash, trans fatty
acids, sugars and starches and the garbage the packaging companies to
created in the form of wrappings to clutter up dumpsites or burn in
incinerators and generate toxic smoke.

We are the envy of the world and the clothes horses for extra large
sizes and candidates for angioplasty.

Our TV screens are cluttered up with ads for medications to make us
bounce along a beach, hand in hand, and the horrible possible side
effects must also be prominently displayed on the screen.

People think the new RAW food is oh so trendy when man subsisted on it
originally. Others aren't happy with the existing food oils, they have
to genetically modify rapseed with no concern for the fact that
changing one molecule can effect the others, but they don't know just
how. Kids think the best machines are the vending monsters in their
schools, funded for athletics by the soft drink companies.

The final insult is the legion of supermodels flaunting stick slender
figures floated by blobs of silicone as they prance down runways clad
in clothes that don't fit anyone but anorexics.

Peter Finch had the right idea in the Paddy Chayefsky movie about TV,
"Network".

Turn it off, turn it all off NOW!

(Shall I tell you how i really feel ? :-)

--
Diva
********
There Is No Triumph Without Loss!




--
jmk in NC

Well, part of the point that they were trying to make is that kids don't
understand marketing (that someone is trying to get them to buy
something, may not be telling the whole truth, may be making exagerated
claims, etc.). There is no debate over the fact that kids don't
understand this. The debate is over when they do. Kraft Foods says 6
yo. Others think that it's a lot closer to 10 yo.

"Last year there were more than 2,800 new candies, desserts, ice creams
and snacks on the market — but only 230 new fruit or vegetable products."

The show (and article at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html) went on
to say:

"The average American child sees 10,000 food advertisements a year on
television alone, and most of those advertisements are for fast food,
sugarcoated cereal, soft drinks and candy, and other foods dense in fat
and calories."

So yes, parents need to (1) set a good example and (2) help their kids
to understand it but there is a limit to what kids of different ages
will be able to understand (not exactly rocket science, I know).

On 12/9/2003 1:30 AM, Perple Gyrl wrote:
Its almost impossible to escape, even if you turn the tv off. It is on
billboards, in magazines, in store displays. The kids would have to be
raised by mormons in the country with no electricity to not be exposed. I
think that parents should take more of the responsibility in making sure the
kids understand nutrition and consequences.

--
Email me at:
perpleglow(AT)comcast.net
http://community.webshots.com/user/perpleglow


"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message
...

In article , Ignoramus25226
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html

Without even seeing this show, we know who is to blame.

America and it's health care system and grain agri-mega-culture bosses
and lobbysists and food processors and advertising agencies have
brainwashed a passive, lazy public into thinking they need a lot of
things to make them feel adaquate and happy.

Most of the things are chemical or nutritional trash, trans fatty
acids, sugars and starches and the garbage the packaging companies to
created in the form of wrappings to clutter up dumpsites or burn in
incinerators and generate toxic smoke.

We are the envy of the world and the clothes horses for extra large
sizes and candidates for angioplasty.

Our TV screens are cluttered up with ads for medications to make us
bounce along a beach, hand in hand, and the horrible possible side
effects must also be prominently displayed on the screen.

People think the new RAW food is oh so trendy when man subsisted on it
originally. Others aren't happy with the existing food oils, they have
to genetically modify rapseed with no concern for the fact that
changing one molecule can effect the others, but they don't know just
how. Kids think the best machines are the vending monsters in their
schools, funded for athletics by the soft drink companies.

The final insult is the legion of supermodels flaunting stick slender
figures floated by blobs of silicone as they prance down runways clad
in clothes that don't fit anyone but anorexics.

Peter Finch had the right idea in the Paddy Chayefsky movie about TV,
"Network".

Turn it off, turn it all off NOW!

(Shall I tell you how i really feel ? :-)

--
Diva
********
There Is No Triumph Without Loss!




--
jmk in NC

Beverly wrote:
Peter Jennings aired a very interesting show on ABC this evening titled "How
to get fat without even trying".
Here's a summary of the show. It dealt with the food industry and it's
contributions to the overweight epidemic in America.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/L..._031208-1.html



I did read that long article -

I got fat on my own by choosing to eat large quantities of those empty
calorie foods. Yes, it was my choice. And it's my responsibility to
stop. Because the support is slim for being a "food purist" in this day
and age. (Don't want to get 'orthorexia' now would we? You know it's
bad when wanting real food in a fake society is a 'disorder')

I do highly believe that the amount of support one gets either way
profoundly INFLUENCES the choices one makes. When I was on the wagon,
bigtime, the eyerolls were constant when I was in social company.
People nudging each other and trying not to laugh as I politely
refrained from "snack time". I *must* go against the grain, and march
to my own drummer, because if I allow other people who simply do NOT
understand to influence me, it's my own undoing.

I'm having a LOT of trouble getting back on the wagon. But I am
certainly going to give it my all. I refuse to get back into the 2's
and want to get down to a healthy weight.

CM
(Just this once... it's Christmas!)

Patricia Heil wrote:


So are we automatons who buy everything the TV tells us to buy?
Not me. I don't buy anything, literally or figuratively, until
I've checked it out for myself.

I don't own a tv, but lack of a television isn't a leakproof shield.
One would have to inhabit a cave in a distant land to avoid all the
pressure one gets.

I don't even have to BUY junk food or sweets or anything to have it
available as a staple in a diet grin. Just go to practically any
social setting, and tables are laden with cookies, cakes, potato chips,
sweets, soda pops all as social niceties that have been quite standard
for a long time.

I don't eat any of those things, but the constant pressure is certainly
there. And where I am, NOT eating those things makes you VERY
different. It's less of a hassle for me, because I'm content with being
very different, and don't have a threat of "but people will think you
are weird" hanging over my head, because I could care less.

That is helping me get back on the wagon. It's my body, and if people
are going to think I am weird, then so be it.

Ignoramus6480 wrote:

Hey CM, what happened? You are getting back on the wagon, what's going
on?

Yep, I fell off. I am getting back on to what *worked* for me (not only
for some stupid number on a scale, but for how I FELT). I'm back on low
carb as my _baseline_ diet, with 1-2 servings of fresh fruit (the fruit,
not the juice) added to it.

Going off a diet that I know *works* in every respect was a foolish
mistake on my part. But it keeps me human I'm living proof that
it's going OFF the diet that doesn't work, NOT the diet in and of
itself.

CM