Bill Maher on obesity (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

To be clear I’m not talking about just being thin and generally healthy, I think that’s a universal truth as to thin being healthier then overweight. I’m talking specifically about the BMI index bottom tier of a 6 foot tall man weighing 137 pounds. That feels to me unhealthy and malnourished. That could lead to lots of problems with your immune system and your general overall health. Am I drawing these conclusions from years of medical experience? No. I’m just drawing it from the conclusion of being a skinny person for the majority of my youth and 20’s. And that’s 20lbs lighter then I ever was at that height.  

OK, it sounds like your gut just tells you it’s bad. Were you sick often when you weighed less?

To be fair, there is some data which suggests BMI between 15 and 20 is associated with increased mortality, but nothing I’m aware of for those between 18.5 and 20 without intercurrent illness (ie. If you lose weight because of a disease, like cancer).

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yes on portion control. I'd say that sugar-sweetened beverages morally count as dessert, and fiber is included in fruits and veggies. Good point on alcohol, to the extent that's considered a dietary issue.

Michael Pollan says: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I say: "Eat more fruits and veggies. Limit fried foods and desserts. Don't be too weird about it."

Pollan's is better than mine, but either way, things aren't as complicated as many people make them out to be. Should grains be emphasized or minimized? I don't think it matters since they're neither essential nor harmful (in reasonable amounts, absent special intolerances or allergies). Same with meat. Same with whatever else is considered controversial that day. None of it is worth stressing out about if you get the basics right. (Avoiding entire food groups or macronutrients counts as being weird.) JMHO.

I agree with you, by and large, and like Pollan’s general approach.

But that’s only for health. When you consider related issues, like environmental impact and animal welfare, it is worth putting a bit more thought into dietary choices.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Sweeteners are not exceptions to the general rule that demand curves for goods will slope downward and to the right.

Consider two parallel universes. In the first universe, sugar is $4/lb and HFCS is $5/lb. (The HFCS may contain filler so that it has the same calories as sugar by weight.) In the second universe, corn is subsidized, so sugar is still $4/lb but HFCS is $3/lb.

You can expect two things to happen in the second universe compared to the first: (1) food manufacturers will substitute away from sugar in favor of HFCS at the margin, and (2) people will consume more total calories from sweeteners.

The second effect will happen in two ways. Bakers could make their products sweeter and more densely caloric, so people will consume more calories from added sweeteners even if their cupcake consumption remains constant. Or bakers could switch from sugar to HFCS without increasing the number of calories in each cupcake, but now that cupcakes are cheaper, people will eat more cupcakes on average. Both effects are likely to occur in combination.

The upshot: When people already consume too many calories from added sweeteners, you can expect subsidies for added sweeteners to have adverse health effects.

Isnt the gap between sugar and hfcs growing? In other words i think sugar usage % is growing and I believe it is the more used product. (I only saw up to 2018 data, but the lines were diverging quite a bit).

Pretty sure in some years sugar is actually cheaper. 

So i don't really think that the small price differences can make a very big difference in twinkie and cupcake demand, and certainly not enough in the concept of net health effects. 

With sticky pricing (no pun intended) does that small difference even ever hit the consumer? 

If HFCS use is declining per capita shouldnt we be seeing a slimmer society if it was the boogeyman it is made out to be?  

Eta: disclaimer so that nobody jumps to the conclusion I am saying hfcs is healthy or good. I am simply stating that junk food =bad whether it is sugar of hfcs. Drinking soda or eating cupcakes made from either one will get you fat if you are pile driving them.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Isnt the gap between sugar and hfcs growing? In other words i think sugar usage % is growing and I believe it is the more used product. (I only saw up to 2018 data, but the lines were diverging quite a bit).

Pretty sure in some years sugar is actually cheaper. 

So i don't really think that the small price differences can make a very big difference in twinkie and cupcake demand, and certainly not enough in the concept of net health effects. 

With sticky pricing (no pun intended) does that small difference even ever hit the consumer? 

If HFCS use is declining per capita shouldnt we be seeing a slimmer society if it was the boogeyman it is made out to be?  

Eta: disclaimer so that nobody jumps to the conclusion I am saying hfcs is healthy or good. I am simply stating that junk food =bad whether it is sugar of hfcs. Drinking soda or eating cupcakes made from either one will get you fat if you are pile driving them.

I think you’re right, that all simple sugars are unhealthy. Additional harm caused by hfcs is controversial, though it definitely seemed to be added to everything starting in the late 70s/80s, around the same time the obesity epidemic really took off. But rising corn prices and negative press have led to reduced use the last few years, yet we ain’t getting healthier.

On the flip side, carbohydrates are not all bad. We didn’t learn our lesson from decades prior, when all fats were demonized, ultimately leading to the creation of a bunch of heavily processed (and unhealthy) low-fat foods. Now we’re going 180 degrees the other way with ketogenic diets. Meanwhile, diets in areas known for longevity all have high carbohydrate content. But they’re not eating Ding Dongs and Doritos, nor bacon and pork rinds.

 

[shader]

your point #2 is ignorant

there is no hope for you if you think grass fed beef is the sane as grain fed,  chemically enhanced, anitbiotic infused "meat"

I've often wondered how different it really is.  It's the same macros.  There are plenty of exceptionally healthy people who eat "grain fed, chemically enhanced, antibiotic infused "meat".  It seems logical it's healthier to eat grass-fed.  But to say he's ignorant, I mean the burden of proof is on you to prove that.