• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to sign Child Nutrition Bill today

My generation ate as many junk foods as kids do today, but the long-term effects weren't as destructive as you'd think. Life expectancy rose from 68 to 78, and heart attacks are about the same.

ricksfolly

Doubtful. Unless the calories contained in junk food has increased since then.


Scientists have begun to trace the link between portion sizes and increased obesity in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 1971 and 2000 American women increased the number of calories they consumed by 22 percent (from 1,542 to 1,877 per day), while men increased their intake by 7 percent (from 2,450 to 2,618 calories).

Dietary Trends, American - calcium, food, nutrition, deficiency, body, diet, health, fat, nutrients, eating, carbohydrates, vitamin, vitamins, habits, soluble, Dietary Patterns
 
My generation ate as many junk foods as kids do today, but the long-term effects weren't as destructive as you'd think. Life expectancy rose from 68 to 78, and heart attacks are about the same.

ricksfolly

I'd imagine that has more to do with advances in medical care. Childhood obesity also was never as high as it is now. Does that have a lot to do with lack of activity? Probably, but that doesn't make it okay for schools to serve foods that they know are harmful to kids health. Again, if you want your kids to eat junk at schools pack them a lunch.
 
I'd imagine that has more to do with advances in medical care. Childhood obesity also was never as high as it is now. Does that have a lot to do with lack of activity? Probably, but that doesn't make it okay for schools to serve foods that they know are harmful to kids health. Again, if you want your kids to eat junk at schools pack them a lunch.

I really think activity is over rated. Consider a three mile jog, which is waaaayyyy more than most kids would ever do, will burn less than 300 calories for a kid. That's a handful of ritz crackers.
 
EVerything is better when it sits on a ritz....:2razz:
IMO, portion control is key. I have a large friend who will sit down at breakfast with 3 or 4 times the amount of food I had...this was on a cruise ship. He exercised a lot, but he just couldn't exercise enough to make up for all the calories he consumed.
That was a few years ago, now he is doing it right. He has no choice any more. He wants new knees, and the doctors say not until he loses a lot of weight...
 
EVerything is better when it sits on a ritz....:2razz:
IMO, portion control is key. I have a large friend who will sit down at breakfast with 3 or 4 times the amount of food I had...this was on a cruise ship. He exercised a lot, but he just couldn't exercise enough to make up for all the calories he consumed.
That was a few years ago, now he is doing it right. He has no choice any more. He wants new knees, and the doctors say not until he loses a lot of weight...

When I was in the midst of my triathlon training, I'd work out 2-4 hours a day and I still had to watch what I ate. Even professional triathletes, who workout 8 hours a day are conscious of what they put in their body. "Exercise more" has been sold to us by the food companies because it doesn't rely on "eat less."
 
That displays the general stupidty of Liberalism. They want to tax the hell out of cigarettes so people will quit smoking, but then bitch when revenues go down and unemployment goes up and don't have a clue how to replace those lost tax dollars and jobs, when it happens.

That defines Liberalism and is why I oppose it.

This bill is a prime example. They piss and moan about the deficit and we need to raise taxes, then turn around and pass a bill that spends money on ****ing green lunch rooms in the school houses.

Is there nothing we should worry about? I mean, should the heatlh department be concerned about health or porfit? Which should take precedence? Tobbacco companis have aproduct that if used as directed will kill you slowly. A slow poison if you will. If this is proper, legal, than why should we object to any drug? As health concerns don't override profit, why not just make every thign legal and remove government from any concern or responsibility?

I overlooked the mindless generalization to ask the questions. But, I do want you to know I noticed it. :coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom