Re: Who bears responsibility for SAD? (was: Supplements a Sham?)

[Guest guest]

I believe most people do indeed care about their personal health however we are

wired to rank

relative risks to prioritize our focus on immediate life threatening dangers so

we don't get eaten

by a saber toothed tiger while we're chasing a squirrel to eat.

The stress of modern life has a tendency to elevate any number of relatively

unimportant tasks to

immediate or urgent status, causing long term health concerns to drop down

several notches on the

survival priority list. Once down below the top two or three, forget about

compliance with any

avoidance of unhealthy eating behavior or making time to exercise.

While there are probably as many different motivations as individuals who make

up this group, we

have for whatever reason elevated our personal health to a higher level of

awareness than the

average individual. We cannot change their personal motivations, at best we can

offer a hand up when

they finally do come around to what we feel is the more sensible perspective.

Demographic trends are such that aging baby boomers are facing their mortality

in ever larger

numbers, many will be attracted to CR as " death avoidance " , others due to

rampant obesity will be

attracted to CRON or CRAN as the only IMO sensible lifelong eating plan,

unfortunately we also

attract extreme characters who at best make interesting reading and at worst

serve as a glaring " bad

examples " to instruct how not to act or perhaps what we should worry about.

Save your energy, we can't change the way other people act, let alone how they

think. The best we

can do is share our personal successes and educate others with what little we

know about nutrition

and lifestyle health issues.

Be well and enjoy the season,

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:15 AM

Subject: [ ] Who bears responsibility for SAD? (was:

Supplements a Sham?)

Rod: I agree completely. Most people don't give a crap. OTOH after a

" Bill Clinton " like attack, sometimes they wake up and smell the coffee (so

to speak). And sometimes that's too late to rescue their health.

[Guest guest]

IMHO many people are not wired to think long-term but focus on immediate

gratification. That's why the overweight woman was pigging out on several

desserts at the dinner Rodney attended.

" A moment on the lips ---- forever on the hips "

Immediate gratification is at the root of other behaviors which IMHO are not

in the best interests of the individual. For example, in the U.S. the

failure of many to prepare for retirement is often cited in the media. A

large part of the population would rather spend today than save for

tomorrow.

on 12/16/2004 11:54 AM, at crjohnr@... wrote:

> I believe most people do indeed care about their personal health however we

> are wired to rank

> relative risks to prioritize our focus on immediate life threatening dangers

> so we don't get eaten

> by a saber toothed tiger while we're chasing a squirrel to eat.

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

I wholeheartedly agree that deceit of any kind with regard to

nutrition and health is inexcusable. (And deceit includes, in my

book, covering up known, highly negative information).

However, one cannot, imo, reasonably expect one company to refrain

from using a legal food ingredient, if in doing so consumers drop

their product for that of a competitor because the consumer prefers

the taste of the unhealthy ingredient. (I am thinking of issues like

hydrogenated fats and sugars). Nor, imo, can you fault a company for

using the same ingredients to cut costs. Corporate profit margins

are so slim in the vast majority of industries that any company whose

costs were just 10% higher than those of the competition would

quickly be broke. (If they were 5% higher they would go broke more

slowly).

So, it is in the nature of the system that has generated by far the

highest living standards in world history that corporations

absolutely must do everything they can to reduce their costs. (And

this incentive to minimize costs is a MAJOR factor in those higher

living standards).

The above is my reason for believing that for legal foods that are

believed/known to be dangerous, the only sensible solution is to make

them illegal. Then all corporations will be on a level playing

field, and the issue would not arise.

Nor would the issue arise if individuals took even a minimal

responsibility for their own health and read food labels.

Rodney.

>

> >> Hi Al:

> >>

> >> Thanks for that link and text. It is easy to agree with pretty

much

> >> all of the text posted, in isolation, as it was stated. I

certainly

> >> do, and I imagine most of us here do also. But behind it all is

a

> >> fundamental assumption, which for me disqualifies Nestle's entire

> >> thesis.

> >>

> >> The assumption seems to be that never, in any circumstances,

should

> >> any individual ever be required to make any effort to determine

for

> >> him/her self what and how much they should eat (or smoke, or

drink,

> >> or whatever else, for that matter) to be healthy. Someone else

> >> apparently, often the government, but perhaps more accurately

> >> EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES, is supposed to do it for them. In this

> >> particular case under discussion the blame is placed squarely on

the

> >> food companies. They are supposed to put only the very

healthiest

> >> ingredients in their foods even when/if their competitors are

selling

> >> junk and the consumers (all brainless sheep apparently) prefer

to eat

> >> the junk instead and let the company marketing healthy food go

broke

> >> from lack of sales. A nice utopian dream perhaps, but

ridiculous in

> >> the real world.

> >>

[Guest guest]

Greeting!

Good insight! I think you right people care but it hard even for me! I

like fried much! Never eat fried now (ok maybe once! eat fruits

and vegetables and fish but eat too much still.

Hard to fault others when I not perfect too. I try but not always do

right, no blame others when they do not right, we all human.

Please, thank you for this group!

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> I believe most people do indeed care about their personal health

however we are wired to rank

> relative risks to prioritize our focus on immediate life threatening

dangers so we don't get eaten

> by a saber toothed tiger while we're chasing a squirrel to eat.

>

> The stress of modern life has a tendency to elevate any number of

relatively unimportant tasks to

> immediate or urgent status, causing long term health concerns to

drop down several notches on the

> survival priority list. Once down below the top two or three, forget

about compliance with any

> avoidance of unhealthy eating behavior or making time to exercise.

>

> While there are probably as many different motivations as

individuals who make up this group, we

> have for whatever reason elevated our personal health to a higher

level of awareness than the

> average individual. We cannot change their personal motivations, at

best we can offer a hand up when

> they finally do come around to what we feel is the more sensible

perspective.

>

> Demographic trends are such that aging baby boomers are facing their

mortality in ever larger

> numbers, many will be attracted to CR as " death avoidance " , others

due to rampant obesity will be

> attracted to CRON or CRAN as the only IMO sensible lifelong eating

plan, unfortunately we also

> attract extreme characters who at best make interesting reading and

at worst serve as a glaring " bad

> examples " to instruct how not to act or perhaps what we should worry

about.

>

> Save your energy, we can't change the way other people act, let

alone how they think. The best we

> can do is share our personal successes and educate others with what

little we know about nutrition

> and lifestyle health issues.

>

> Be well and enjoy the season,

>

> JR

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@e...]

> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:15 AM

>

> Subject: [ ] Who bears responsibility for SAD? (was:

> Supplements a Sham?)

>

>

>

> Rod: I agree completely. Most people don't give a crap. OTOH after a

> " Bill Clinton " like attack, sometimes they wake up and smell the

coffee (so

> to speak). And sometimes that's too late to rescue their health.

[Guest guest]

Yes, the big companies serve the primary goal of profit & their

investors that buy their stock.

Personally, I wish all food servers (take-out & dining in) were required

to provide nutrition counts. Ruby Tuesday's provides basic counts for

their foods, but everyone that has gone there with me refuses to look at

the numbers. I love looking at the numbers.

I gotta rant: My dad & his wife actually believe that there's nothing

wrong with eating non-nutritive foods & are unconcerned vitamins or

RDA's. I am appalled. They sincerely believe that a gifting them with

cake from the grocery store is about the most heartfelt loving thing

you can do for them!!! You guys might want to close your eyes for

this, but the more trans fatty acids & sugar, the better. He's almost

86, she's 72, moderately overweight. Considering their diet, they've

done GREAT! It seems the medications have saved them the most

(heart/cholesterol meds). She just had cancer lump removed from breast

but no evidence that it spread. I don't think they have any reason to

believe that good nutrition matters.

Francesca Skelton wrote:

> BUT I do feel that these big companies do everything they can to fool

> the public in many ways. They advertise to young kids (so that their

> parents

> will buy sugary cereals and candy for example), trick the public with

> their labeling that their product is " healthy " , put the worst and most

> unhealthy things (like trans-fats and corn syrup) in their products so

> that they'll taste good, and otherwise do all they can for the

> almighty dollar. The tobacco companies and their chicanery were the

> perfect example.

>

> That does not absolve the individual of course. Both are

> responsible. And in America, the system of " lobbyists " as pointed out

> in the book (which kept

> the tobacco info under wraps for a few decades and no doubt cost

> thousands of people's lives) is the awful.

[Guest guest]

>>Personally, I wish all food servers (take-out & dining in) were

required

to provide nutrition counts. Ruby Tuesday's provides basic counts for

their foods, but everyone that has gone there with me refuses to look at

the numbers. I love looking at the numbers.

From a recent news story on the issue...

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. DeLauro, D-Conn., plan to

reintroduce bills to require fast-food chains to list calorie counts on

menu boards; they want table-service chains to list calories, fats,

carbs and sodium on printed menus. The proposed legislation would affect

only chains with 20 or more outlets.