Doing your own research (3 Viewers)

[Sparky Polastri]

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.

How to Wash Fruits & Vegetables with Baking Soda | Arm & Hammer

Fruits and vegetables have some traces of chemicals, bacteria, dirt or wax on them. Learn how to easily and safely wash produce with baking soda.

www.armandhammer.com

Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.

This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?

For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.

You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.

Fair critique of my responses. I did jump on the practicality of what eating natural should mean. I did that because i took the intent of the comment that lead to this evolution in conversation to be about that, the intent to eat better (possible i misread). The topic then took a turn to the governments definition which felt secondary to the point being made.

What i wanted to do was try and point out that though that's true, it's not that hard to see where manipulation is likely and where it's less likely. I wanted to point out options exist and there are farms doing it correctly and it's on us, the consumer to understand the difference.

I'd love to believe this, but I am not as optimistic as you are. This forum does a wonderful job of basing reality on their anecdotal experiences. It's a really easy trap to fall into. It happens in these threads all the time. However, if we are going to talk systemically, that approach is fruitless and unproductive. Individual knowledge is NOT an indicator of the overall knowledge of a population. Our overall quality of health in this country shows us that we likely don't realize the manipulation. At the very beginning of this particular quote block, Joe says he's comfortable with using federal definitions of these words.

You were spot on in your very first reply here in this chain. Keep it at "whole foods". Using federal government definitions of things like "natural" and "organic" to determine quality is a fool's errand. The less ingredients the better, regardless of what the government labels it.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Really good example here of the type of remedies my cousins and younger friends share with me when they’ve “done the research.” Cortisol cocktails. Multiple people have told me about this in the past few weeks.

Can a ‘Cortisol Cocktail’ Help Relieve Stress?

Influencers say that the concoction can boost energy and help you relax. We asked experts whether that’s true.

www.nytimes.com

TLDR: it’s all BS

Don't drink one then?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Really good example here of the type of remedies my cousins and younger friends share with me when they’ve “done the research.” Cortisol cocktails. Multiple people have told me about this in the past few weeks.

Can a ‘Cortisol Cocktail’ Help Relieve Stress?

Influencers say that the concoction can boost energy and help you relax. We asked experts whether that’s true.

www.nytimes.com

TLDR: it’s all BS

Don't drink one then?

Not relevant but thanks

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.

How to Wash Fruits & Vegetables with Baking Soda | Arm & Hammer

Fruits and vegetables have some traces of chemicals, bacteria, dirt or wax on them. Learn how to easily and safely wash produce with baking soda.

www.armandhammer.com

Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.

This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?

For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.

You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.

Fair critique of my responses. I did jump on the practicality of what eating natural should mean. I did that because i took the intent of the comment that lead to this evolution in conversation to be about that, the intent to eat better (possible i misread). The topic then took a turn to the governments definition which felt secondary to the point being made.

What i wanted to do was try and point out that though that's true, it's not that hard to see where manipulation is likely and where it's less likely. I wanted to point out options exist and there are farms doing it correctly and it's on us, the consumer to understand the difference.

I'd love to believe this, but I am not as optimistic as you are. This forum does a wonderful job of basing reality on their anecdotal experiences. It's a really easy trap to fall into. It happens in these threads all the time. However, if we are going to talk systemically, that approach is fruitless and unproductive. Individual knowledge is NOT an indicator of the overall knowledge of a population. Our overall quality of health in this country shows us that we likely don't realize the manipulation. At the very beginning of this particular quote block, Joe says he's comfortable with using federal definitions of these words.

You were spot on in your very first reply here in this chain. Keep it at "whole foods". Using federal government definitions of things like "natural" and "organic" to determine quality is a fool's errand. The less ingredients the better, regardless of what the government labels it.

Natural and organic are likely to be better for you than typical grocery store garbage if you do nothing but read the name on the box and don't look at the ingredients. But several of us have said look at the ingredients and know what you're putting into your body. I doubt Joe is disagreeing with that either but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think anyone is arguing that there are exceptions and some companies use natural and organic as a marketing thing when it really isn't.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Really good example here of the type of remedies my cousins and younger friends share with me when they’ve “done the research.” Cortisol cocktails. Multiple people have told me about this in the past few weeks.

Can a ‘Cortisol Cocktail’ Help Relieve Stress?

Influencers say that the concoction can boost energy and help you relax. We asked experts whether that’s true.

www.nytimes.com

TLDR: it’s all BS

Don't drink one then?

Not relevant but thanks

What is relevant? You or I can't claim it's BS. If you want to try it for your cortisol then try it. If you don't, then don't. Personally, I've never heard of that thing so I have no opinion on it whatsoever.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Really good example here of the type of remedies my cousins and younger friends share with me when they’ve “done the research.” Cortisol cocktails. Multiple people have told me about this in the past few weeks.

Can a ‘Cortisol Cocktail’ Help Relieve Stress?

Influencers say that the concoction can boost energy and help you relax. We asked experts whether that’s true.

www.nytimes.com

TLDR: it’s all BS

Don't drink one then?

Not relevant but thanks

What is relevant? You or I can't claim it's BS. If you want to try it for your cortisol then try it. If you don't, then don't. Personally, I've never heard of that thing so I have no opinion on it whatsoever.

You’re this far into this thread and you don’t see how whether or not I try this is relevant? Seriously?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.

How to Wash Fruits & Vegetables with Baking Soda | Arm & Hammer

Fruits and vegetables have some traces of chemicals, bacteria, dirt or wax on them. Learn how to easily and safely wash produce with baking soda.

www.armandhammer.com

Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.

This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?

For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.

You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.

Fair critique of my responses. I did jump on the practicality of what eating natural should mean. I did that because i took the intent of the comment that lead to this evolution in conversation to be about that, the intent to eat better (possible i misread). The topic then took a turn to the governments definition which felt secondary to the point being made.

What i wanted to do was try and point out that though that's true, it's not that hard to see where manipulation is likely and where it's less likely. I wanted to point out options exist and there are farms doing it correctly and it's on us, the consumer to understand the difference.

I'd love to believe this, but I am not as optimistic as you are. This forum does a wonderful job of basing reality on their anecdotal experiences. It's a really easy trap to fall into. It happens in these threads all the time. However, if we are going to talk systemically, that approach is fruitless and unproductive. Individual knowledge is NOT an indicator of the overall knowledge of a population. Our overall quality of health in this country shows us that we likely don't realize the manipulation. At the very beginning of this particular quote block, Joe says he's comfortable with using federal definitions of these words.

You were spot on in your very first reply here in this chain. Keep it at "whole foods". Using federal government definitions of things like "natural" and "organic" to determine quality is a fool's errand. The less ingredients the better, regardless of what the government labels it.

You're right in your first paragraph. Nobody can argue in good faith that the American public as a group is doing what's required to be healthy. I can go to Walmart and see that with my own eyes. It's been mentioned multiple times that those who do are outliers and that certainly seems to be true. I won't argue on behalf of the general public that they have anything reasonably figured out.

I don't know how i come across with my posting. I feel my "research" is reasonable and that my expectations for the food i consume goes beyond what's written on a box. I'm an outlier in my attempt I'm sure, but I'm not the only one coming around to the fact that you need to be accountable for yourself. I think that's being represented by quite a few people in this discussion.

To go all the way back to the beginning I'm not supposed to do my own research and trust the data the government puts out, but I'm also not supposed to trust the data the government puts out at the grocery store (trust the NIH, but not the FDA). The messaging is a bit confusing. How am i supposed to know what to trust? I like to educate myself as best i can in regards to my health and it seems prudent considering. What i want to articulate is that not everyone's research is bad research, that not everyone's dietary choices are based on being deceived, that listening to a podcast with a guru doesn't mean I'm curing cancer with vitamin C. When someone says they eat natural that's a good thing, but it gets pointed out that natural isn't natural, fair enough, but it misses the point the poster was trying to make and trying to clarify only digs a deeper hole.

 

[dgreen]

misses the point the poster was trying to make

This should be the title of this thread.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

misses the point the poster was trying to make

This should be the title of this thread.

Touché. There's a lot of that here. I really think most of us are trying to say the same thing.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.

How to Wash Fruits & Vegetables with Baking Soda | Arm & Hammer

Fruits and vegetables have some traces of chemicals, bacteria, dirt or wax on them. Learn how to easily and safely wash produce with baking soda.

www.armandhammer.com

Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.

This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?

For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.

You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.

Fair critique of my responses. I did jump on the practicality of what eating natural should mean. I did that because i took the intent of the comment that lead to this evolution in conversation to be about that, the intent to eat better (possible i misread). The topic then took a turn to the governments definition which felt secondary to the point being made.

What i wanted to do was try and point out that though that's true, it's not that hard to see where manipulation is likely and where it's less likely. I wanted to point out options exist and there are farms doing it correctly and it's on us, the consumer to understand the difference.

I'd love to believe this, but I am not as optimistic as you are. This forum does a wonderful job of basing reality on their anecdotal experiences. It's a really easy trap to fall into. It happens in these threads all the time. However, if we are going to talk systemically, that approach is fruitless and unproductive. Individual knowledge is NOT an indicator of the overall knowledge of a population. Our overall quality of health in this country shows us that we likely don't realize the manipulation. At the very beginning of this particular quote block, Joe says he's comfortable with using federal definitions of these words.

You were spot on in your very first reply here in this chain. Keep it at "whole foods". Using federal government definitions of things like "natural" and "organic" to determine quality is a fool's errand. The less ingredients the better, regardless of what the government labels it.

You're right in your first paragraph. Nobody can argue in good faith that the American public as a group is doing what's required to be healthy. I can go to Walmart and see that with my own eyes. It's been mentioned multiple times that those who do are outliers and that certainly seems to be true. I won't argue on behalf of the general public that they have anything reasonably figured out.

I don't know how i come across with my posting. I feel my "research" is reasonable and that my expectations for the food i consume goes beyond what's written on a box. I'm an outlier in my attempt I'm sure, but I'm not the only one coming around to the fact that you need to be accountable for yourself. I think that's being represented by quite a few people in this discussion.

To go all the way back to the beginning I'm not supposed to do my own research and trust the data the government puts out, but I'm also not supposed to trust the data the government puts out at the grocery store (trust the NIH, but not the FDA). The messaging is a bit confusing. How am i supposed to know what to trust? I like to educate myself as best i can in regards to my health and it seems prudent considering. What i want to articulate is that not everyone's research is bad research, that not everyone's dietary choices are based on being deceived, that listening to a podcast with a guru doesn't mean I'm curing cancer with vitamin C. When someone says they eat natural that's a good thing, but it gets pointed out that natural isn't natural, fair enough, but it misses the point the poster was trying to make and trying to clarify only digs a deeper hole.

I would say it's not about "trust". If we're using "trust" here that means the research is incomplete on our part and we haven't completed the research. I think THE most important thing any of us can do is understand the terms as defined by the government, so when we see them on food, we know what they mean/don't mean. In order for us to have a productive conversation, we all have to be speaking the same language. That's all I've been meaning to say and it appears that Term was saying the same thing before he bowed out.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

misses the point the poster was trying to make

This should be the title of this thread.

Touché. There's a lot of that here. I really think most of us are trying to say the same thing.

To put a bow on this. I've agreed with just about everything you say your approach is. It's how we should do things. Its how I do things. It takes a lot more work, but that's part of the price of health. Very little of your approach is included in govt terms of "organic" and/or "natural". They aren't synonymous/interchangeable with your personal definitions. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why synthetic pesticide X is worse for you than the pesticide Y that the synthetic one is based on. Often times, THAT is the delineation between "organic" or not if you ask our government.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

My only point, which I'm surprised was contentious, was using the FDA and USDA definition of natural, I think natural food is better.

Are there no truly natural and organic options? I find nitpicking natural strange too. It's better to eat natural whole minimally treated foods (herbicides and pesticides), this isn't a hot take. It might take a little work to "research" a brand, but it's not all that hard. Buy from local sources you can confirm. I'm sure most places have local farms that are truly natural. Wash your produce with a little baking soda and water if in doubt.

How to Wash Fruits & Vegetables with Baking Soda | Arm & Hammer

Fruits and vegetables have some traces of chemicals, bacteria, dirt or wax on them. Learn how to easily and safely wash produce with baking soda.

www.armandhammer.com

Maybe it's better to call it whole foods and not natural/organic. Just don't eat ultraprocessed garbage and you'll be better off. Imo it is that simple.

This isn't the question. The question is how these terms are defined for legal purposes so that the terms can then be put on packaging. What you or I think "natural" is NOT the measure when it comes to our food. To illustrate the point, the bold above is something that we all probably agree on. That's not the definition by our legal standards. That's the rub. To illustrate further, I'll ask a simple enough question to both you and Joe. Why do you believe that "organic" is better than "non-organic"?

For the first bolded in your post, i understand nitpicking the definition (deceptive marketing is a problem), but without speaking for anyone else seeking "natural" options are a net positive imo. The granola someone eats might be highly processed, but that person is also more likely to have an apple, make a salad, cook their own dinner if they've taken the time to care about natural vs industrially processed. That's a better diet even if they're being lied to on the granola package. If someone wants to try (though not always succeed) to eat naturally (healthy) that's a positive. My issue was that it seemed critical of people making an attempt to be healthier, that everything is smoke and mirrors so why bother.

To the second part, because i think soil health matters, I think use of non industrial fertilizer and other chemicals matter, i think humanely raised livestock without hormones and antibiotics matter. It's better for the planet, it's better for microorganisms and on up the food chain, it's better for water supplies not to have industrial runoff, it's better for us. Can i ask you the same? Why don't you think organic is better than non organic?

I don't want to talk past you though. The definition of natural I'm using is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" and not what the government allows on a label. To not get bogged down in semantics i understand humans grow the food so it can never be the true definition of natural, but using sustainable farming techniques that rely on crop rotations, naturally occurring fertilizers, companion crops to cut down on insect and weed damage is something i think fits the first part of that definition.

You have wrapped up a bunch of different topics into one scenario. Those prior to me were pointing out that "natrual" and "organic" as defined by our food complex, are virtually meaningless. And that eating foods based on those terms, as defined by the food complex is virtually pointless. They are correct. This isn't a case of "virtually impossible to do, so why bother". It's a very simple thing to do actually. You just don't follow the food complex and its labeling to do it. If you do, you fail.

The point of all this (at least when I came into the conversation) was/is that the definition you are using, is NOT the same as the one used by the food complex to label foods. I don't think anyone here would argue your view is wrong. Your standard is much higher than the govt standard for using such labels though. People need to understand that.

Fair critique of my responses. I did jump on the practicality of what eating natural should mean. I did that because i took the intent of the comment that lead to this evolution in conversation to be about that, the intent to eat better (possible i misread). The topic then took a turn to the governments definition which felt secondary to the point being made.

What i wanted to do was try and point out that though that's true, it's not that hard to see where manipulation is likely and where it's less likely. I wanted to point out options exist and there are farms doing it correctly and it's on us, the consumer to understand the difference.

I'd love to believe this, but I am not as optimistic as you are. This forum does a wonderful job of basing reality on their anecdotal experiences. It's a really easy trap to fall into. It happens in these threads all the time. However, if we are going to talk systemically, that approach is fruitless and unproductive. Individual knowledge is NOT an indicator of the overall knowledge of a population. Our overall quality of health in this country shows us that we likely don't realize the manipulation. At the very beginning of this particular quote block, Joe says he's comfortable with using federal definitions of these words.

You were spot on in your very first reply here in this chain. Keep it at "whole foods". Using federal government definitions of things like "natural" and "organic" to determine quality is a fool's errand. The less ingredients the better, regardless of what the government labels it.

You're right in your first paragraph. Nobody can argue in good faith that the American public as a group is doing what's required to be healthy. I can go to Walmart and see that with my own eyes. It's been mentioned multiple times that those who do are outliers and that certainly seems to be true. I won't argue on behalf of the general public that they have anything reasonably figured out.

I don't know how i come across with my posting. I feel my "research" is reasonable and that my expectations for the food i consume goes beyond what's written on a box. I'm an outlier in my attempt I'm sure, but I'm not the only one coming around to the fact that you need to be accountable for yourself. I think that's being represented by quite a few people in this discussion.

To go all the way back to the beginning I'm not supposed to do my own research and trust the data the government puts out, but I'm also not supposed to trust the data the government puts out at the grocery store (trust the NIH, but not the FDA). The messaging is a bit confusing. How am i supposed to know what to trust? I like to educate myself as best i can in regards to my health and it seems prudent considering. What i want to articulate is that not everyone's research is bad research, that not everyone's dietary choices are based on being deceived, that listening to a podcast with a guru doesn't mean I'm curing cancer with vitamin C. When someone says they eat natural that's a good thing, but it gets pointed out that natural isn't natural, fair enough, but it misses the point the poster was trying to make and trying to clarify only digs a deeper hole.

I would say it's not about "trust". If we're using "trust" here that means the research is incomplete on our part and we haven't completed the research. I think THE most important thing any of us can do is understand the terms as defined by the government, so when we see them on food, we know what they mean/don't mean. In order for us to have a productive conversation, we all have to be speaking the same language. That's all I've been meaning to say and it appears that Term was saying the same thing before he bowed out.

Yeah, very fair to say we should all be on the same page with the language that we use and who/what it is exactly we're trying to represent with comments. I'm keying in on context, but maybe that leaves to much open to interpretation and I'm out in left field. At the same time i think semantics can bog things down. We took the long way, but tossing "natural" for "whole" probably cleans up the last couple pages.

 

[gianmarco]

Not sure why I'm even dropping back in here, but I'll touch on one last thing that I think is the basis/crux of all the talking back and forth on a lot of these topics covered in this thread.

I've mentioned this before, but there is a VERY big difference between individual health and population health.

Many of you that are patients and not in healthcare come from an individual health standpoint (as you should). The fact that only 15% of the population (number just a guesstimate, not for accuracy), for example, can succeed in losing weight with diet and exercise is irrelevant to whether or not you can. If you're able to, either through discipline or help from family or whatever, achieve your health goals without medicine, then the idea that others need it is likely going to be foreign to you. In that aspect, I would simply say "consider yourselves lucky".

Your doctor, however, is coming at it knowing that 85% of his/her patients will need pharmacologic help to achieve those goals. It's not to say that diet and exercise alone won't be recommended and not to say that they shouldn't be willing to work with a patient that wants to avoid medicine, but at the end of the day, that's going to help most of their patients and where they will likely end up. And, it's very difficult to determine based on a visit where each person will fall. So yeah, trial it for 3 months and let's recheck is why that's recommended.

And, it's also why when you consider why so many people fail that it's not just a lack of willpower. I've said this plenty here and in other threads that this is akin to smoking, drug abuse, gambling, and any other number of addictions. You can't just will it away. There are neurochemicals that make it essentially impossible to sustain. It's not a weakness. There's tangible, actual substances within the body that make it a daily struggle (and often loss) for many, many people. It's similar to why quitting smoking or quitting drugs is so hard. Sure, there are some people that can say "no more after today" and walk away cold turkey. Again, that's the minority and they should consider themselves lucky.

Look at all the weight loss programs and exercise videos and "hacks" to help people shed those pounds. They WANT to lose the weight. They know it's not healthy. But they fail time and time again. Read and listen to stories of frustration that are endless -- doing cardio, trying to watch what they eat, etc, and maybe even succeed for a while only to fail yet again.

This is where these new drugs are helping. They stop those cravings. It's like "the patch" for smokers.

As a country, it would be great to have nothing but healthy foods available and infrastructure that encourages more movement and walking. But the reality is that's just not the case and essentially unattainable. Too much money to be had otherwise and far too difficult to reverse. Societies like Japan or Europe have been established with healthier lifestyles for too long. Small markets with local food, walkable/bikable cities, etc.

We can't just achieve that at the scale needed here without investing major money and lots of time. So the alternative is finding other ways to help the most people.

So yeah, "natural" or whatever, go for it. Do what you need to do for YOU. But at the same time, understand that it's simply not scalable for most people no matter how much any of you think it's about being lazy.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

misses the point the poster was trying to make

This should be the title of this thread.

Touché. There's a lot of that here. I really think most of us are trying to say the same thing.

To put a bow on this. I've agreed with just about everything you say your approach is. It's how we should do things. Its how I do things. It takes a lot more work, but that's part of the price of health. Very little of your approach is included in govt terms of "organic" and/or "natural". They aren't synonymous/interchangeable with your personal definitions. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why synthetic pesticide X is worse for you than the pesticide Y that the synthetic one is based on. Often times, THAT is the delineation between "organic" or not if you ask our government.

Yes, i don't feel like we're arguing at all. I enjoy your takes the same as i do Term's, I'm trying (not always succeeding) to avoid speaking for the general public, other posters, and instead how i personally try to navigate the minefield that is public health. I can't argue what you've said and I agree with you big picture. The only thing i don't want to concede is that it's too complicated for the average person to navigate on their own, or labels are hard to understand. At the individual level you can 100% do what it takes to eat a healthy whole food diet. If the government can't help (plenty of reasons why this might be) then we have to empower the individual to make the best choices they can. And around we go, i get it, but we're in a pretty bad place with heathcare as you probably know much better than I. Simple good health habits and a little homework can make a real difference. So I've tried to give examples i felt were easy enough even if the average American wouldn't try.

Eta. You did not say it was to complicated and perhaps nobody is. I just think a lot of times excuses are built in without even trying.

Eta 2. @gianmarco said it way better and with more tact than I. And thanks for the post. I'm glad you made it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

As a country, it would be great to have nothing but healthy foods available and infrastructure that encourages more movement and walking. But the reality is that's just not the case and essentially unattainable. Too much money to be had otherwise and far too difficult to reverse. Societies like Japan or Europe have been established with healthier lifestyles for too long. Small markets with local food, walkable/bikable cities, etc.

We can't just achieve that at the scale needed here without investing major money and lots of time. So the alternative is finding other ways to help the most people.

Why do you think we seemed to be able to achieve a relatively normal obesity rate for a couple hundred years in this country but for some reason, we've gone off the rails in my lifetime?

That's a relatively recent change in our country's history.

I hear people talk about how we're unable to invest the time and money to change things as if our country has always had astronomic obesity rates. It hasn't always been this way.

 

[gianmarco]

As a country, it would be great to have nothing but healthy foods available and infrastructure that encourages more movement and walking. But the reality is that's just not the case and essentially unattainable. Too much money to be had otherwise and far too difficult to reverse. Societies like Japan or Europe have been established with healthier lifestyles for too long. Small markets with local food, walkable/bikable cities, etc.

We can't just achieve that at the scale needed here without investing major money and lots of time. So the alternative is finding other ways to help the most people.

Why do you think we seemed to be able to achieve a relatively normal obesity rate for a couple hundred years in this country but for some reason, we've gone off the rails in my lifetime?

That's a relatively recent change in our country's history.

I hear people talk about how we're unable to invest the time and money to change things as if our country has always had astronomic obesity rates. It hasn't always been this way.

I would think the answer is pretty obvious to many. They've been discussed in this thread and elsewhere. There are quite a few reasons. I'll let ChatGPT answer you so I don't need to type it out. And, if you really didn't already know this answer, after reading it, I'm sure it's easy to understand why it would be so difficult to reverse across the country.

Plugging your question in, here you go:




You’re touching on one of the most profound public health shifts of the past century. The U.S. maintained relatively stable (and low) obesity rates for a long time—then, starting in the 1970s–1980s, the rates skyrocketed. Several interlocking factors are believed to explain this sudden shift:

---

1. The Industrialization of Food​

• Ultra-processed foods: Over the last 50 years, cheap, calorie-dense, ultra-processed foods (high in sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils) have become the foundation of the American diet.
• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS): Its widespread adoption in the late 1970s (due to subsidies for corn) made sugary drinks and snacks cheap and ubiquitous.
• Portion sizes exploded: Restaurant and fast-food portions doubled or tripled compared to the 1950s.

---

2. The "Snack Culture" and Constant Availability of Food​

• Historically, people ate three structured meals per day. By the late 20th century, snacking became normalized.
• Vending machines, convenience stores, and fast food chains mean food is never more than a few steps away.
• Americans consume hundreds of extra calories per day compared to 50 years ago, largely through snacks and sugary drinks.

---

3. Changes in Physical Activity​

• Automation and technology: Work became less physically demanding, and daily movement (walking, manual labor) decreased dramatically.
• Sedentary leisure: TV, video games, and now smartphones/streaming have replaced active hobbies for many.
• Cars dominate transportation—most Americans walk less than 1 mile per day, which was unheard of a century ago.

---

4. Food Marketing and Psychological Factors​

• The food industry spends tens of billions annually marketing processed foods—especially to children.
• Hyper-palatable foods (engineered combinations of fat, sugar, and salt) exploit the brain's reward system, making overeating almost inevitable.
• In the 1980s and 90s, "low-fat" marketing ironically led to increased sugar and refined carb intake.

---

5. Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors​

• Cheap calories vs. expensive nutrition: Heavily processed, calorie-dense foods are often cheaper and more accessible than fresh produce or quality proteins.
• Food deserts: Many communities lack affordable access to fresh, healthy food.
• Stress and sleep: Rising stress levels, economic insecurity, and chronic sleep deprivation affect appetite hormones (ghrelin/leptin), promoting weight gain.

---

6. Shifting Cultural Norms​

• Body size normalization: As obesity rates climbed, larger body sizes became normalized, making weight gain less noticeable over generations.
• Meal culture erosion: Family dinners and home-cooked meals have declined, replaced by on-the-go eating.

---

Why did this all happen so suddenly?​

Because in the post-WWII era, technology, agriculture, and marketing advanced far faster than human biology could adapt.
Our bodies are evolutionarily designed for food scarcity, but we now live in an environment of constant abundance—especially of calorie-rich, nutrient-poor foods. This mismatch between biology and environment became extreme in your lifetime.

---

Would you like me to share a timeline of key events (from the 1950s–2000s) that "broke" the American diet—like the introduction of TV dinners, fast food boom, and soda sizes doubling?

 

[Joe Bryant]

As a country, it would be great to have nothing but healthy foods available and infrastructure that encourages more movement and walking. But the reality is that's just not the case and essentially unattainable. Too much money to be had otherwise and far too difficult to reverse. Societies like Japan or Europe have been established with healthier lifestyles for too long. Small markets with local food, walkable/bikable cities, etc.

We can't just achieve that at the scale needed here without investing major money and lots of time. So the alternative is finding other ways to help the most people.

Why do you think we seemed to be able to achieve a relatively normal obesity rate for a couple hundred years in this country but for some reason, we've gone off the rails in my lifetime?

That's a relatively recent change in our country's history.

I hear people talk about how we're unable to invest the time and money to change things as if our country has always had astronomic obesity rates. It hasn't always been this way.

I would think the answer is pretty obvious to many. They've been discussed in this thread and elsewhere. There are quite a few reasons. I'll let ChatGPT answer you so I don't need to type it out. And, if you really didn't already know this answer, after reading it, I'm sure it's easy to understand why it would be so difficult to reverse across the country.

Plugging your question in, here you go:




You’re touching on one of the most profound public health shifts of the past century. The U.S. maintained relatively stable (and low) obesity rates for a long time—then, starting in the 1970s–1980s, the rates skyrocketed. Several interlocking factors are believed to explain this sudden shift:

---

1. The Industrialization of Food​

• Ultra-processed foods: Over the last 50 years, cheap, calorie-dense, ultra-processed foods (high in sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils) have become the foundation of the American diet.
• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS): Its widespread adoption in the late 1970s (due to subsidies for corn) made sugary drinks and snacks cheap and ubiquitous.
• Portion sizes exploded: Restaurant and fast-food portions doubled or tripled compared to the 1950s.

---

2. The "Snack Culture" and Constant Availability of Food​

• Historically, people ate three structured meals per day. By the late 20th century, snacking became normalized.
• Vending machines, convenience stores, and fast food chains mean food is never more than a few steps away.
• Americans consume hundreds of extra calories per day compared to 50 years ago, largely through snacks and sugary drinks.

---

3. Changes in Physical Activity​

• Automation and technology: Work became less physically demanding, and daily movement (walking, manual labor) decreased dramatically.
• Sedentary leisure: TV, video games, and now smartphones/streaming have replaced active hobbies for many.
• Cars dominate transportation—most Americans walk less than 1 mile per day, which was unheard of a century ago.

---

4. Food Marketing and Psychological Factors​

• The food industry spends tens of billions annually marketing processed foods—especially to children.
• Hyper-palatable foods (engineered combinations of fat, sugar, and salt) exploit the brain's reward system, making overeating almost inevitable.
• In the 1980s and 90s, "low-fat" marketing ironically led to increased sugar and refined carb intake.

---

5. Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors​

• Cheap calories vs. expensive nutrition: Heavily processed, calorie-dense foods are often cheaper and more accessible than fresh produce or quality proteins.
• Food deserts: Many communities lack affordable access to fresh, healthy food.
• Stress and sleep: Rising stress levels, economic insecurity, and chronic sleep deprivation affect appetite hormones (ghrelin/leptin), promoting weight gain.

---

6. Shifting Cultural Norms​

• Body size normalization: As obesity rates climbed, larger body sizes became normalized, making weight gain less noticeable over generations.
• Meal culture erosion: Family dinners and home-cooked meals have declined, replaced by on-the-go eating.

---

Why did this all happen so suddenly?​

Because in the post-WWII era, technology, agriculture, and marketing advanced far faster than human biology could adapt.
Our bodies are evolutionarily designed for food scarcity, but we now live in an environment of constant abundance—especially of calorie-rich, nutrient-poor foods. This mismatch between biology and environment became extreme in your lifetime.

---

Would you like me to share a timeline of key events (from the 1950s–2000s) that "broke" the American diet—like the introduction of TV dinners, fast food boom, and soda sizes doubling?

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

 

[gianmarco]

Sorry, I'll bow out.

Let's discuss the definition of natural some more.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

What is your thought, Joe, on why we have gone off the rails in the last 50+ years as far as obesity? You are an active participant in this thread so I assume you have some thoughts, would love to hear them.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

misses the point the poster was trying to make

This should be the title of this thread.

Touché. There's a lot of that here. I really think most of us are trying to say the same thing.

To put a bow on this. I've agreed with just about everything you say your approach is. It's how we should do things. Its how I do things. It takes a lot more work, but that's part of the price of health. Very little of your approach is included in govt terms of "organic" and/or "natural". They aren't synonymous/interchangeable with your personal definitions. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why synthetic pesticide X is worse for you than the pesticide Y that the synthetic one is based on. Often times, THAT is the delineation between "organic" or not if you ask our government.

Yes, i don't feel like we're arguing at all. I enjoy your takes the same as i do Term's, I'm trying (not always succeeding) to avoid speaking for the general public, other posters, and instead how i personally try to navigate the minefield that is public health. I can't argue what you've said and I agree with you big picture. The only thing i don't want to concede is that it's too complicated for the average person to navigate on their own, or labels are hard to understand. At the individual level you can 100% do what it takes to eat a healthy whole food diet. If the government can't help (plenty of reasons why this might be) then we have to empower the individual to make the best choices they can. And around we go, i get it, but we're in a pretty bad place with heathcare as you probably know much better than I. Simple good health habits and a little homework can make a real difference. So I've tried to give examples i felt were easy enough even if the average American wouldn't try.

Eta. You did not say it was to complicated and perhaps nobody is. I just think a lot of times excuses are built in without even trying.

Eta 2. @gianmarco said it way better and with more tact than I. And thanks for the post. I'm glad you made it.

It's not complicated. It's time consuming and it shouldn't be that way. The words and labels should be generally accepted terms/labels used by all. We know our government doesn't operate that way though. Knowing such, you have to then dig into what their definitions are. If we (you and I) were left to our own devices, this is a 5 minute convo that starts and ends with "if you are reading a bunch of ingredients on a box, you probably shouldn't be eating whatever is in the box".

 

[Hoh]

As a country, it would be great to have nothing but healthy foods available and infrastructure that encourages more movement and walking. But the reality is that's just not the case and essentially unattainable. Too much money to be had otherwise and far too difficult to reverse. Societies like Japan or Europe have been established with healthier lifestyles for too long. Small markets with local food, walkable/bikable cities, etc.

We can't just achieve that at the scale needed here without investing major money and lots of time. So the alternative is finding other ways to help the most people.

Why do you think we seemed to be able to achieve a relatively normal obesity rate for a couple hundred years in this country but for some reason, we've gone off the rails in my lifetime?

That's a relatively recent change in our country's history.

I hear people talk about how we're unable to invest the time and money to change things as if our country has always had astronomic obesity rates. It hasn't always been this way.

I would think the answer is pretty obvious to many. They've been discussed in this thread and elsewhere. There are quite a few reasons. I'll let ChatGPT answer you so I don't need to type it out. And, if you really didn't already know this answer, after reading it, I'm sure it's easy to understand why it would be so difficult to reverse across the country.

Plugging your question in, here you go:




You’re touching on one of the most profound public health shifts of the past century. The U.S. maintained relatively stable (and low) obesity rates for a long time—then, starting in the 1970s–1980s, the rates skyrocketed. Several interlocking factors are believed to explain this sudden shift:

---

1. The Industrialization of Food​

• Ultra-processed foods: Over the last 50 years, cheap, calorie-dense, ultra-processed foods (high in sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils) have become the foundation of the American diet.
• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS): Its widespread adoption in the late 1970s (due to subsidies for corn) made sugary drinks and snacks cheap and ubiquitous.
• Portion sizes exploded: Restaurant and fast-food portions doubled or tripled compared to the 1950s.

---

2. The "Snack Culture" and Constant Availability of Food​

• Historically, people ate three structured meals per day. By the late 20th century, snacking became normalized.
• Vending machines, convenience stores, and fast food chains mean food is never more than a few steps away.
• Americans consume hundreds of extra calories per day compared to 50 years ago, largely through snacks and sugary drinks.

---

3. Changes in Physical Activity​

• Automation and technology: Work became less physically demanding, and daily movement (walking, manual labor) decreased dramatically.
• Sedentary leisure: TV, video games, and now smartphones/streaming have replaced active hobbies for many.
• Cars dominate transportation—most Americans walk less than 1 mile per day, which was unheard of a century ago.

---

4. Food Marketing and Psychological Factors​

• The food industry spends tens of billions annually marketing processed foods—especially to children.
• Hyper-palatable foods (engineered combinations of fat, sugar, and salt) exploit the brain's reward system, making overeating almost inevitable.
• In the 1980s and 90s, "low-fat" marketing ironically led to increased sugar and refined carb intake.

---

5. Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors​

• Cheap calories vs. expensive nutrition: Heavily processed, calorie-dense foods are often cheaper and more accessible than fresh produce or quality proteins.
• Food deserts: Many communities lack affordable access to fresh, healthy food.
• Stress and sleep: Rising stress levels, economic insecurity, and chronic sleep deprivation affect appetite hormones (ghrelin/leptin), promoting weight gain.

---

6. Shifting Cultural Norms​

• Body size normalization: As obesity rates climbed, larger body sizes became normalized, making weight gain less noticeable over generations.
• Meal culture erosion: Family dinners and home-cooked meals have declined, replaced by on-the-go eating.

---

Why did this all happen so suddenly?​

Because in the post-WWII era, technology, agriculture, and marketing advanced far faster than human biology could adapt.
Our bodies are evolutionarily designed for food scarcity, but we now live in an environment of constant abundance—especially of calorie-rich, nutrient-poor foods. This mismatch between biology and environment became extreme in your lifetime.

---

Would you like me to share a timeline of key events (from the 1950s–2000s) that "broke" the American diet—like the introduction of TV dinners, fast food boom, and soda sizes doubling?

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

I’d imagine our generation operates under a constant state of stress more so than previous generations. Sure we didn’t have WW2 to worry about, I’m talking about a continuous state of lesser stress that comes from technology. We are “always on call” with work these days. Emails, cell phones, laptops. We have the ability to argue with hundreds, thousands, millions of people 24-7. And as easy as it is to say “just disconnect then”, that’s not an easy thing to do is it? Stress takes a toll on how our body processes what we eat, and it makes making bad food decisions a lot easier. A double whammy.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

the main danger in doing what this thread indicates you should do.

Note: I am not saying don't do your homework - it's that most seek out sources that agree with what they already believe

 

[DA RAIDERS]

As a country, it would be great to have nothing but healthy foods available and infrastructure that encourages more movement and walking. But the reality is that's just not the case and essentially unattainable. Too much money to be had otherwise and far too difficult to reverse. Societies like Japan or Europe have been established with healthier lifestyles for too long. Small markets with local food, walkable/bikable cities, etc.

We can't just achieve that at the scale needed here without investing major money and lots of time. So the alternative is finding other ways to help the most people.

Why do you think we seemed to be able to achieve a relatively normal obesity rate for a couple hundred years in this country but for some reason, we've gone off the rails in my lifetime?

That's a relatively recent change in our country's history.

I hear people talk about how we're unable to invest the time and money to change things as if our country has always had astronomic obesity rates. It hasn't always been this way.

I would think the answer is pretty obvious to many. They've been discussed in this thread and elsewhere. There are quite a few reasons. I'll let ChatGPT answer you so I don't need to type it out. And, if you really didn't already know this answer, after reading it, I'm sure it's easy to understand why it would be so difficult to reverse across the country.

Plugging your question in, here you go:




You’re touching on one of the most profound public health shifts of the past century. The U.S. maintained relatively stable (and low) obesity rates for a long time—then, starting in the 1970s–1980s, the rates skyrocketed. Several interlocking factors are believed to explain this sudden shift:

---

1. The Industrialization of Food​

• Ultra-processed foods: Over the last 50 years, cheap, calorie-dense, ultra-processed foods (high in sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils) have become the foundation of the American diet.
• High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS): Its widespread adoption in the late 1970s (due to subsidies for corn) made sugary drinks and snacks cheap and ubiquitous.
• Portion sizes exploded: Restaurant and fast-food portions doubled or tripled compared to the 1950s.

---

2. The "Snack Culture" and Constant Availability of Food​

• Historically, people ate three structured meals per day. By the late 20th century, snacking became normalized.
• Vending machines, convenience stores, and fast food chains mean food is never more than a few steps away.
• Americans consume hundreds of extra calories per day compared to 50 years ago, largely through snacks and sugary drinks.

---

3. Changes in Physical Activity​

• Automation and technology: Work became less physically demanding, and daily movement (walking, manual labor) decreased dramatically.
• Sedentary leisure: TV, video games, and now smartphones/streaming have replaced active hobbies for many.
• Cars dominate transportation—most Americans walk less than 1 mile per day, which was unheard of a century ago.

---

4. Food Marketing and Psychological Factors​

• The food industry spends tens of billions annually marketing processed foods—especially to children.
• Hyper-palatable foods (engineered combinations of fat, sugar, and salt) exploit the brain's reward system, making overeating almost inevitable.
• In the 1980s and 90s, "low-fat" marketing ironically led to increased sugar and refined carb intake.

---

5. Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors​

• Cheap calories vs. expensive nutrition: Heavily processed, calorie-dense foods are often cheaper and more accessible than fresh produce or quality proteins.
• Food deserts: Many communities lack affordable access to fresh, healthy food.
• Stress and sleep: Rising stress levels, economic insecurity, and chronic sleep deprivation affect appetite hormones (ghrelin/leptin), promoting weight gain.

---

6. Shifting Cultural Norms​

• Body size normalization: As obesity rates climbed, larger body sizes became normalized, making weight gain less noticeable over generations.
• Meal culture erosion: Family dinners and home-cooked meals have declined, replaced by on-the-go eating.

---

Why did this all happen so suddenly?​

Because in the post-WWII era, technology, agriculture, and marketing advanced far faster than human biology could adapt.
Our bodies are evolutionarily designed for food scarcity, but we now live in an environment of constant abundance—especially of calorie-rich, nutrient-poor foods. This mismatch between biology and environment became extreme in your lifetime.

---

Would you like me to share a timeline of key events (from the 1950s–2000s) that "broke" the American diet—like the introduction of TV dinners, fast food boom, and soda sizes doubling?

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

come on joe. You’re beating a dead horse. As different as we all are in here, I think we all know where/what/when the fatification of America comes from. You may not like the answer because you’re altruistic, but you know what the problem is.

You’re a little older than me. How many cereals were there when you were 10? How many are there now? Same question for soda. How about fast food joints? HFCS became main stream in the 70’s. How old were you when your family got your first microwave? Etc etc etc etc. it’s painfully obvious. And America led/leads the way in making everything bigger, easier and cheaper.

 

[Chaos34]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

I did the same thing gianmarco did when i saw your question, and like him, i already knew the answer. asking him to type all that up is asking him to waste his time on a topic that we should all be informed on already. so going to ai there is just fine by me. for me it lead to a longer conversations with ai. the 6 points in chat gpt's reply are well-known, and the ai i used listed the same six, just used different wording. my take on those six is that two of them, while interesting, aren't anywhere near as problematic as the 4 others.

sedentary lifestyles and urban design really aren't the problem and shouldn't be given equal weight to the other 4. an obese person can exercise like a fiend but keep eating the same and will stay obese but get healthier. many don't like this information, but three recent studies support it. every time a fat person tells me he/she is joining a gym and getting in shape, i always reply bluntly - weight loss is about diet. one of those studies concluded with a likelihood of exercise increasing appetite and leading to weight gain.

the other four all point to the food industry maximizing profits while being supported with subsidies and steering the standard american diet down this path. it's really old news by now, but the answer is to fix the food industry. subsidize walnuts and berries not corn and potatoes. subsidize farms that do things exactly right like the one Longtime uses, not massive industrial farms growing 1000s of acres of corn for its sugar. make healthy food choices the more affordable ones. tax soda like cigarettes. a pound of walnuts is 9.99 in walmart here today. there's a pound of chips for 1.99 in the next aisle. what's a mom to do? no subsidies for those labor intensive walnuts. 116 billion for the potatoes and corn making chips and extracting hfcs.

on a positive note the llm agrees with, i think the generation between 20 and 30 is turning the corner. it's just observational for me, but i see a ton of very fit people in that age group and they seem motivated to stay that way. so i put my observation into the llm and it's confirmed. social media has created a vibrant fitness and health culture for ages 15-35. features of the trend include: an educated culture, health and fitness wearables, weight-loss drugs, dietary shifts, community and school programs.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

 

[Chaos34]

Here's where i get the bulk of my "organic" produce and some meat.

About the Farm – Seeds & Spores Family Farm

seedsandspores.com

I was a small time commercial grower for 14 years. 20 acres of avos and greenhouses in San Diego county. Five more acres of greenhouses in the desert. It was a side hustle that turned into something more. I sold it and "retired" early. Irt usda organic certification, I had the same experience as them and reached the same conclusion. Getting certified is a waste of time, money and resources that drives up prices. In my post above I said this farm does it exactly right. Those interested should give that landing page a read. We should be subsidizing things like this. They do it better than 90% of the certified farms I was intimate with and they do it for lower prices.

Ultimately I think the obesity issue is about price more than anything else. It's cheap to eat junk. It's expensive to eat healthy. Taking on big ag is a hellofa thing, but it needs to happen.

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

I did the same thing gianmarco did when i saw your question, and like him, i already knew the answer. asking him to type all that up is asking him to waste his time on a topic that we should all be informed on already. so going to ai there is just fine by me. for me it lead to a longer conversations with ai. the 6 points in chat gpt's reply are well-known, and the ai i used listed the same six, just used different wording. my take on those six is that two of them, while interesting, aren't anywhere near as problematic as the 4 others.

sedentary lifestyles and urban design really aren't the problem and shouldn't be given equal weight to the other 4. an obese person can exercise like a fiend but keep eating the same and will stay obese but get healthier. many don't like this information, but three recent studies support it. every time a fat person tells me he/she is joining a gym and getting in shape, i always reply bluntly - weight loss is about diet. one of those studies concluded with a likelihood of exercise increasing appetite and leading to weight gain.

the other four all point to the food industry maximizing profits while being supported with subsidies and steering the standard american diet down this path. it's really old news by now, but the answer is to fix the food industry. subsidize walnuts and berries not corn and potatoes. subsidize farms that do things exactly right like the one Longtime uses, not massive industrial farms growing 1000s of acres of corn for its sugar. make healthy food choices the more affordable ones. tax soda like cigarettes. a pound of walnuts is 9.99 in walmart here today. there's a pound of chips for 1.99 in the next aisle. what's a mom to do? no subsidies for those labor intensive walnuts. 116 billion for the potatoes and corn making chips and extracting hfcs.

on a positive note the llm agrees with, i think the generation between 20 and 30 is turning the corner. it's just observational for me, but i see a ton of very fit people in that age group and they seem motivated to stay that way. so i put my observation into the llm and it's confirmed. social media has created a vibrant fitness and health culture for ages 15-35. features of the trend include: an educated culture, health and fitness wearables, weight-loss drugs, dietary shifts, community and school programs.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

And, as mentioned in my lengthy, non-AI post, not only are these cheaper foods not good for you, but they are actually addictive compared to non-processed foods.

Study discussing this

It's going to take a lot to change this culture. And, sadly, without government intervention to make healthy eating cheaper (or, more importantly, poor eating much more costly), it just won't happen. When you consider the money involved, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Joe prefers natural in his food and his forum discussion sources.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe prefers natural in his food and his forum discussion sources.

Absolutely.

On a serious note, I hope we can always have a real forum for real people to discuss their thoughts instead of cutting and pasting AI results.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Here's where i get the bulk of my "organic" produce and some meat.

About the Farm – Seeds & Spores Family Farm

seedsandspores.com

I was a small time commercial grower for 14 years. 20 acres of avos and greenhouses in San Diego county. Five more acres of greenhouses in the desert. It was a side hustle that turned into something more. I sold it and "retired" early. Irt usda organic certification, I had the same experience as them and reached the same conclusion. Getting certified is a waste of time, money and resources that drives up prices. In my post above I said this farm does it exactly right. Those interested should give that landing page a read. We should be subsidizing things like this. They do it better than 90% of the certified farms I was intimate with and they do it for lower prices.

Ultimately I think the obesity issue is about price more than anything else. It's cheap to eat junk. It's expensive to eat healthy. Taking on big ag is a hellofa thing, but it needs to happen.

That's really cool. I love these guys and the food is second to none. There's a handful of these in the area, but this is the farm i prefer. They're active at farmers markets, but also offer direct to consumer, and supply a good portion of the produce at my grocery store.

Probably not the thread for it, but if you ever made a post about the ins and outs of a small farm like this I'd love to read it.

 

[gianmarco]

Joe prefers natural in his food and his forum discussion sources.

Absolutely.

On a serious note, I hope we can always have a real forum for real people to discuss their thoughts instead of cutting and pasting AI results.

Keep taking those shots. As if I haven't spent time writing my own thoughts here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

#2

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here's where i get the bulk of my "organic" produce and some meat.

About the Farm – Seeds & Spores Family Farm

seedsandspores.com

I was a small time commercial grower for 14 years. 20 acres of avos and greenhouses in San Diego county. Five more acres of greenhouses in the desert. It was a side hustle that turned into something more. I sold it and "retired" early. Irt usda organic certification, I had the same experience as them and reached the same conclusion. Getting certified is a waste of time, money and resources that drives up prices. In my post above I said this farm does it exactly right. Those interested should give that landing page a read. We should be subsidizing things like this. They do it better than 90% of the certified farms I was intimate with and they do it for lower prices.

Ultimately I think the obesity issue is about price more than anything else. It's cheap to eat junk. It's expensive to eat healthy. Taking on big ag is a hellofa thing, but it needs to happen.

That's really cool. I love these guys and the food is second to none. There's a handful of these in the area, but this is the farm i prefer. They're active at farmers markets, but also offer direct to consumer, and supply a good portion of the produce at my grocery store.

Probably not the thread for it, but if you ever made a post about the ins and outs of a small farm like this I'd love to read it.

100%. Would love to hear more about this.

 

[gianmarco]

And it's not as if this hasn't been discussed elsewhere with the same people dismissing the discussion.

Post in thread 'Obesity and Ozempic and more'

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/obesity-and-ozempic-and-more.812651/post-24970950

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

#2

#2 what?

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

#2

#2 what?

More interested in "actual opinions"?

2 posts in a row taking a snipe at me posting an AI response to an obvious answer (that others similarly defended as reasonable to the "question").

How passive-aggressive/obtuse are you going to be here?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Probably not the thread for it, but if you ever made a post about the ins and outs of a small farm like this I'd love to read it.

Seconding this for a separate thread.

I've got a little bit of acreage that has me wondering about something like this.

Was at the farmer's market yesterday in Nashville and the booths for vegetables were doing all the business. Clearly, there's demand.

I've got a ton of questions.

Off the top of my head:

• Motivation for doing it?
• Economics of a small farm?
• What types of food are most. needed? Most profitable? Relatively easiest?
• What you would do differently if you were to do it again?
• Things to NOT do
• etc

 

[gianmarco]

This is likely diverging too far from the original topic but could make a good thread maybe:

Question: Can one talk about the seemingly poor health of most americans and the undue influence the food industry has without the talk being political?

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

Yes, it’s possible to talk about the poor health of Americans and the influence of the food industry without making it overtly political, but it requires a careful approach. The topic touches so many nerves — corporate power, government regulation, personal responsibility, class divides — that it’s easy to drift into political territory whether you mean to or not.

Here’s how to keep the conversation grounded and constructive:

---

Focus on Shared Concerns​

Start with the common ground:

• Most people agree that chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) are rampant.
• Most agree that ultra-processed foods dominate grocery stores and school lunches.
• And most agree that it’s harder than it should be to eat “real” food in modern America.

These aren't partisan statements — they’re observations.

---

Keep the Language Centered on People​

Instead of saying things like:

• “Big Food has bought off the FDA”
• Try: “It’s tough when the same companies making our food also help shape the guidelines for what we’re told to eat.”

You're still raising the issue, but in a way that invites curiosity rather than conflict.

---

Ask Questions Instead of Making Accusations​

Rather than launching into critique, try asking things like:

• “Is it weird that sugary cereals can still carry ‘heart healthy’ labels?”
• “Why is it easier to find soda than clean water in some schools?”
• “How did we end up with a food system where eating fresh fruit feels like a luxury?”

That tone opens the door for dialogue rather than debate.

---

Ground it in Health and Community, Not Politics​

You can center the conversation on:

• Long-term health outcomes
• The cost of chronic illness to families and society
• The desire for kids to grow up healthy
• The loss of real cooking skills and food culture

These are values that resonate across the board — left, right, or apolitical.

---

What to Watch Out For​

• Blaming individuals (“People just make bad choices”) or blaming groups (“Liberals/Conservatives ruined the food system”) tends to derail.
• Using loaded terms like “woke,” “corporate shills,” “elitist,” etc. can alienate before the conversation begins.
• Assuming bad intent from people who disagree. Many are just operating off different experiences or information.

---

Bottom line:
You can absolutely have this conversation in a non-political way if you lead with humility, shared values, and honest questions. The moment it becomes a battleground of ideologies, you’ve probably lost the real heart of the issue — which is people’s health, families, and the broken systems we all live in.

Wish we could have real discussions here with real opinions.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

#2

#2 what?

More interested in "actual opinions"?

2 posts in a row taking a snipe at me posting an AI response to an obvious answer (that others similarly defended as reasonable to the "question").

How passive-aggressive/obtuse are you going to be here?

I am very interested in actual opinions from our people here. It's bascially what the forum is.

I'm sorry if you think that's somehow a "snipe" at you.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is likely diverging too far from the original topic but could make a good thread maybe:

Question: Can one talk about the seemingly poor health of most americans and the undue influence the food industry has without the talk being political?

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

Yes, it’s possible to talk about the poor health of Americans and the influence of the food industry without making it overtly political, but it requires a careful approach. The topic touches so many nerves — corporate power, government regulation, personal responsibility, class divides — that it’s easy to drift into political territory whether you mean to or not.

Here’s how to keep the conversation grounded and constructive:

---

Focus on Shared Concerns​

Start with the common ground:

• Most people agree that chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) are rampant.
• Most agree that ultra-processed foods dominate grocery stores and school lunches.
• And most agree that it’s harder than it should be to eat “real” food in modern America.

These aren't partisan statements — they’re observations.

---

Keep the Language Centered on People​

Instead of saying things like:

• “Big Food has bought off the FDA”
• Try: “It’s tough when the same companies making our food also help shape the guidelines for what we’re told to eat.”

You're still raising the issue, but in a way that invites curiosity rather than conflict.

---

Ask Questions Instead of Making Accusations​

Rather than launching into critique, try asking things like:

• “Is it weird that sugary cereals can still carry ‘heart healthy’ labels?”
• “Why is it easier to find soda than clean water in some schools?”
• “How did we end up with a food system where eating fresh fruit feels like a luxury?”

That tone opens the door for dialogue rather than debate.

---

Ground it in Health and Community, Not Politics​

You can center the conversation on:

• Long-term health outcomes
• The cost of chronic illness to families and society
• The desire for kids to grow up healthy
• The loss of real cooking skills and food culture

These are values that resonate across the board — left, right, or apolitical.

---

What to Watch Out For​

• Blaming individuals (“People just make bad choices”) or blaming groups (“Liberals/Conservatives ruined the food system”) tends to derail.
• Using loaded terms like “woke,” “corporate shills,” “elitist,” etc. can alienate before the conversation begins.
• Assuming bad intent from people who disagree. Many are just operating off different experiences or information.

---

Bottom line:
You can absolutely have this conversation in a non-political way if you lead with humility, shared values, and honest questions. The moment it becomes a battleground of ideologies, you’ve probably lost the real heart of the issue — which is people’s health, families, and the broken systems we all live in.

Wish we could have real discussions here with real opinions.

Absolutely. I made the mistake of posting AI results a while back and was told it was cheesy and cringe. I thought about it and agreed with the feedback and haven't done it since. They were right. For exactly the reasons I just said.

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

#2

#2 what?

More interested in "actual opinions"?

2 posts in a row taking a snipe at me posting an AI response to an obvious answer (that others similarly defended as reasonable to the "question").

How passive-aggressive/obtuse are you going to be here?

I am very interested in actual opinions from our people here. It's bascially what the forum is.

I'm sorry if you think that's somehow a "snipe" at you.

Then maybe don't dismiss my multiple posts with "actual opinions" so you can call out my one response with ChatGPT and lament it as being disappointed I wouldn't give your question more time/thought.

ESPECIALLY when you did the exact same thing (see my quote above).

Rules for thee and not for me.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I've got a little bit of acreage that has me wondering about something like this.

Also have some acreage that would work for this. Started a large garden this year and it's been frustrating at times, but also successful with hiccups so far. The thought of upscaling in the future feels realistic. I have equipment, motivation, and space, but not quite sure where the starting point would be. Same questions come to mind

/ end hijack

 

[DA RAIDERS]

This is likely diverging too far from the original topic but could make a good thread maybe:

Question: Can one talk about the seemingly poor health of most americans and the undue influence the food industry has without the talk being political?

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and one that cuts to the heart of a tricky issue.

Yes, it’s possible to talk about the poor health of Americans and the influence of the food industry without making it overtly political, but it requires a careful approach. The topic touches so many nerves — corporate power, government regulation, personal responsibility, class divides — that it’s easy to drift into political territory whether you mean to or not.

Here’s how to keep the conversation grounded and constructive:

---

Focus on Shared Concerns​

Start with the common ground:

• Most people agree that chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart disease) are rampant.
• Most agree that ultra-processed foods dominate grocery stores and school lunches.
• And most agree that it’s harder than it should be to eat “real” food in modern America.

These aren't partisan statements — they’re observations.

---

Keep the Language Centered on People​

Instead of saying things like:

• “Big Food has bought off the FDA”
• Try: “It’s tough when the same companies making our food also help shape the guidelines for what we’re told to eat.”

You're still raising the issue, but in a way that invites curiosity rather than conflict.

---

Ask Questions Instead of Making Accusations​

Rather than launching into critique, try asking things like:

• “Is it weird that sugary cereals can still carry ‘heart healthy’ labels?”
• “Why is it easier to find soda than clean water in some schools?”
• “How did we end up with a food system where eating fresh fruit feels like a luxury?”

That tone opens the door for dialogue rather than debate.

---

Ground it in Health and Community, Not Politics​

You can center the conversation on:

• Long-term health outcomes
• The cost of chronic illness to families and society
• The desire for kids to grow up healthy
• The loss of real cooking skills and food culture

These are values that resonate across the board — left, right, or apolitical.

---

What to Watch Out For​

• Blaming individuals (“People just make bad choices”) or blaming groups (“Liberals/Conservatives ruined the food system”) tends to derail.
• Using loaded terms like “woke,” “corporate shills,” “elitist,” etc. can alienate before the conversation begins.
• Assuming bad intent from people who disagree. Many are just operating off different experiences or information.

---

Bottom line:
You can absolutely have this conversation in a non-political way if you lead with humility, shared values, and honest questions. The moment it becomes a battleground of ideologies, you’ve probably lost the real heart of the issue — which is people’s health, families, and the broken systems we all live in.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

i spared you the ai cut and paste, but I'm a bored retired guy and gianmarco is a working doctor.

Thanks. Always way more interested in actual opinions, especially when folks, like you, have experience in the topic.

#2

#2 what?

More interested in "actual opinions"?

2 posts in a row taking a snipe at me posting an AI response to an obvious answer (that others similarly defended as reasonable to the "question").

How passive-aggressive/obtuse are you going to be here?

I am very interested in actual opinions from our people here. It's bascially what the forum is.

I'm sorry if you think that's somehow a "snipe" at you.

Then maybe don't dismiss my multiple posts with "actual opinions" so you can call out my one response with ChatGPT and lament it as being disappointed I wouldn't give your question more time/thought.

ESPECIALLY when you did the exact same thing (see my quote above).

Rules for thee and not for me.

Sorry but no. I received the feedback that cutting and pasting walls of AI was cheesy and cringe. And understood the feedback was right. So I stopped. And certainly didn't try to defend it.

I know the "Rules for thee and not for me." is fun for some. And I've no doubt been guilty of that in the past. But not on this one. Sorry.

Also, apologies to the thread for derailing. You're welcome to get the last word in on somehow being offended and taking personally the fact I always prefer actual opinion, but I'm done with that tangent here and will try to get back to the topic.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

What is your thought, Joe, on why we have gone off the rails in the last 50+ years as far as obesity? You are an active participant in this thread so I assume you have some thoughts, would love to hear them.

Thanks @Joe Schmo

I see lots of the same stuff and things like AI suggests but I truly don't know the answers.

The thing I keep coming back to is the fact not that long ago (50 or so years) we seemed to be in a much better place. And people still lived in cities and suburbs and in rural areas.

Sure, life was different in many ways, but it's not like we're comparing 2025 to 1825.

My GB @tommyGunZ mentioned more food insecurity in the 60's. I'd never thought of that and maybe that has a factor. I don't know.

Gianmarco wrote earlier:
"The fact that only 15% of the population (number just a guesstimate, not for accuracy), for example, can succeed in losing weight with diet and exercise is irrelevant to whether or not you can. If you're able to, either through discipline or help from family or whatever, achieve your health goals without medicine, then the idea that others need it is likely going to be foreign to you. In that aspect, I would simply say "consider yourselves lucky".

"Your doctor, however, is coming at it knowing that 85% of his/her patients will need pharmacologic help to achieve those goals. It's not to say that diet and exercise alone won't be recommended and not to say that they shouldn't be willing to work with a patient that wants to avoid medicine, but at the end of the day, that's going to help most of their patients and where they will likely end up. And, it's very difficult to determine based on a visit where each person will fall. So yeah, trial it for 3 months and let's recheck is why that's recommended."

I'm interested in why today only the guesstimated 15% of people should consider themselves lucky, when 50 years ago, it seems like that number of "lucky" people was massively bigger. That just seems odd. And something worth trying to figure out how we get back to there.

Just as importantly as the why though is the how we get back to a level of health and obesity that we had in previous years. Short of moving to Japan.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

What is your thought, Joe, on why we have gone off the rails in the last 50+ years as far as obesity? You are an active participant in this thread so I assume you have some thoughts, would love to hear them.

Thanks @Joe Schmo

I see lots of the same stuff and things like AI suggests but I truly don't know the answers.

The thing I keep coming back to is the fact not that long ago (50 or so years) we seemed to be in a much better place. And people still lived in cities and suburbs and in rural areas.

Sure, life was different in many ways, but it's not like we're comparing 2025 to 1825.

My GB @tommyGunZ mentioned more food insecurity in the 60's. I'd never thought of that and maybe that has a factor. I don't know.

Gianmarco wrote earlier:
"The fact that only 15% of the population (number just a guesstimate, not for accuracy), for example, can succeed in losing weight with diet and exercise is irrelevant to whether or not you can. If you're able to, either through discipline or help from family or whatever, achieve your health goals without medicine, then the idea that others need it is likely going to be foreign to you. In that aspect, I would simply say "consider yourselves lucky".

"Your doctor, however, is coming at it knowing that 85% of his/her patients will need pharmacologic help to achieve those goals. It's not to say that diet and exercise alone won't be recommended and not to say that they shouldn't be willing to work with a patient that wants to avoid medicine, but at the end of the day, that's going to help most of their patients and where they will likely end up. And, it's very difficult to determine based on a visit where each person will fall. So yeah, trial it for 3 months and let's recheck is why that's recommended."

I'm interested in why today only the guesstimated 15% of people should consider themselves lucky, when 50 years ago, it seems like that number of "lucky" people was massively bigger. That just seems odd. And something worth trying to figure out how we get back to there.

Just as importantly as the why though is the how we get back to a level of health and obesity that we had in previous years. Short of moving to Japan.

Do you even read my posts? The answer to this question is so beyond obvious I don’t understand why you continue to ask it. People, including me, have posited answers, but you keep asking the same question. I don’t get it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For specific reasons, the food seems to be an obvious one. As @DA RAIDERS said, things like cereal have changed. But on an anecdotal level, I'm not sure how much as I remember as a kid eating pretty terribly. Frosted Flakes cereal. And sugary sodas. I can remember eating Pixy Stix candy that was basically straight sugar with some flavor. My daugher would kill me if I let my grandchildren near that today.

In lots of ways, it seems like, at least in my personal experience, things like avoiding crazy candy and such is much more popular. When I was young, the kid who wasn't allowed sugar everything was the odd kid. Today, it feels the opposite.

That's part of what seems so odd.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. But I'd hope we could have a real discussion with real people here as I think the value of the forum is hearing what others think.

If we wanted to hear what AI thinks, we could just ask AI.

What is your thought, Joe, on why we have gone off the rails in the last 50+ years as far as obesity? You are an active participant in this thread so I assume you have some thoughts, would love to hear them.

Thanks @Joe Schmo

I see lots of the same stuff and things like AI suggests but I truly don't know the answers.

The thing I keep coming back to is the fact not that long ago (50 or so years) we seemed to be in a much better place. And people still lived in cities and suburbs and in rural areas.

Sure, life was different in many ways, but it's not like we're comparing 2025 to 1825.

My GB @tommyGunZ mentioned more food insecurity in the 60's. I'd never thought of that and maybe that has a factor. I don't know.

Gianmarco wrote earlier:
"The fact that only 15% of the population (number just a guesstimate, not for accuracy), for example, can succeed in losing weight with diet and exercise is irrelevant to whether or not you can. If you're able to, either through discipline or help from family or whatever, achieve your health goals without medicine, then the idea that others need it is likely going to be foreign to you. In that aspect, I would simply say "consider yourselves lucky".

"Your doctor, however, is coming at it knowing that 85% of his/her patients will need pharmacologic help to achieve those goals. It's not to say that diet and exercise alone won't be recommended and not to say that they shouldn't be willing to work with a patient that wants to avoid medicine, but at the end of the day, that's going to help most of their patients and where they will likely end up. And, it's very difficult to determine based on a visit where each person will fall. So yeah, trial it for 3 months and let's recheck is why that's recommended."

I'm interested in why today only the guesstimated 15% of people should consider themselves lucky, when 50 years ago, it seems like that number of "lucky" people was massively bigger. That just seems odd. And something worth trying to figure out how we get back to there.

Just as importantly as the why though is the how we get back to a level of health and obesity that we had in previous years. Short of moving to Japan.

Do you even read my posts? The answer to this question is so beyond obvious I don’t understand why you continue to ask it. People, including me, have posited answers, but you keep asking the same question. I don’t get it.

:( Yes, I read your posts. You contribute a lot of good discussion to the forum and I read your posts.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've got a little bit of acreage that has me wondering about something like this.

Also have some acreage that would work for this. Started a large garden this year and it's been frustrating at times, but also successful with hiccups so far. The thought of upscaling in the future feels realistic. I have equipment, motivation, and space, but not quite sure where the starting point would be. Same questions come to mind

/ end hijack

LOL at hijack.

There you go @Chaos34, two votes for a new thread on the topic.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This is where anecdotes are unhelpful and derail answering the questions posed. It doesn't really help to know that personal experiences suggest a negativity towards sugar. What does help is understanding that the average person consumed about 4 lbs of sugar a year in the 1950s and that skyrocketed to over 100 lbs of sugar a year in the early 2000s. Silver lining is, we are down slightly from that peak. THERE is a major reason we have obesity problems. Where is all that sugar coming from? All those foods in boxes and bags and wrappers.