• 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!

What do you think about the new $2 million Food Plate?

What do you think about the Food Plate?

  • Total voters
    24
Kandahar said:
I haven't seen the details yet, but hopefully it's an improvement from the Food Pyramid. The Food Pyramid was based on which lobbyist groups were the most influential, rather than which diet is the healthiest. There is no WAY that people should eat as much meat or dairy products as the Food Pyramid said that they should.
Click to expand...

Actually the food pyramid suggested way more "grains" than it should have. All that carbohydrate in the diet is fine if you are an endurance athlete or extremely active person. For the average sedentary American, the carbohydrate suggested levels are far to high, leading to obesity and diabetes.
 
WI Crippler said:
Actually the food pyramid suggested way more "grains" than it should have. All that carbohydrate in the diet is fine if you are an endurance athlete or extremely active person. For the average sedentary American, the carbohydrate suggested levels are far to high, leading to obesity and diabetes.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think he was thinking the previous version, the 4 basic food groups. We were taught equal parts meet, cereal, vegetables and dairy.

USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif
 
WI Crippler said:
Actually the food pyramid suggested way more "grains" than it should have. All that carbohydrate in the diet is fine if you are an endurance athlete or extremely active person. For the average sedentary American, the carbohydrate suggested levels are far to high, leading to obesity and diabetes.
Click to expand...

Carbs should still make up the highest percentage of macronutrients for the average person. The pcf ration for a sedentary should be something like 13/65/22
 
Gargantuan said:
Carbs should still make up the highest percentage of macronutrients for the average person. The pcf ration for a sedentary should be something like 13/65/22
Click to expand...

There is research coming out with regards that is downplaying the role of carbs in the diet. Not saying that we shouldn't, or cannot eat carbs. We still need them. But as the pyramid above suggests, 6-11 servings is a lot of carb. When we think of what is used to fatten cattle, are they drinking milk and eating meat? No, they are being fed grain. Your body is going to store more fat, because its not as quick of an energy source as carbohydrate, the higher your blood sugar levels are. The body will use the glycogen available before it asks the body to use fats and proteins as a fuel for energy.
 
Mellie said:
Ah, I'm guessing the research is included. But nutrition has been researched out the wazoo. Why do we need to keep reinventing the wheel? More fruits and veggies, less sugars and starches. Take a vitamin daily. It's not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...

WI Crippler said:
There is research coming out with regards that is downplaying the role of carbs in the diet. Not saying that we shouldn't, or cannot eat carbs. We still need them. But as the pyramid above suggests, 6-11 servings is a lot of carb. When we think of what is used to fatten cattle, are they drinking milk and eating meat? No, they are being fed grain. Your body is going to store more fat, because its not as quick of an energy source as carbohydrate, the higher your blood sugar levels are. The body will use the glycogen available before it asks the body to use fats and proteins as a fuel for energy.
Click to expand...

Any more questions Mellie? You still going to replicate all this in class with some construction paper and glue?
 
WI Crippler said:
There is research coming out with regards that is downplaying the role of carbs in the diet. Not saying that we shouldn't, or cannot eat carbs. We still need them. But as the pyramid above suggests, 6-11 servings is a lot of carb. When we think of what is used to fatten cattle, are they drinking milk and eating meat? No, they are being fed grain. Your body is going to store more fat, because its not as quick of an energy source as carbohydrate, the higher your blood sugar levels are. The body will use the glycogen available before it asks the body to use fats and proteins as a fuel for energy.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Whole grain pasta, brown rice, etc, is not going to raise your blood sugar levels that high. There is a difference between simple carbs, which you seem to be thinking are all carbs, and complex carbs, which is what the majority of that 65 percent should be (about a 55 to 10 ratio). Simple carbs (also called simple sugars) will cause a spike in blood sugar, followed by insulin release from the pancreas, which = fat storage. If you are taking in your maintenance level of calories daily, you are not going to store any more fat regardless of whether you are eating carbs or fats or proteins. Low carb diets have been thrown out a long time ago and the weight loss people see on them has been shown to be nothing more than due to caloric restriction of low carb diets.
 
Last edited:
According to the following article a version of the pyramid was released in 2005. Hmmm, who was president then? *scratches head*

Farewell, Food Pyramid; Meet Your New $2 Million Replacement, a Plate

A revised pyramid, MyPyramid, was released in 2005, but designed in such a way that whatever nutritional information it was to communicate was rendered almost useless:

[MyPyramid] turned the old hierarchy on its side, with vertical brightly colored strips standing in for the different food groups. It also showed a stick figure running up the side to emphasize the need for exercise.​

2822430_431.jpg
 
From pb's link:

This new logo, which cost about $2 million to develop and promote, is meant to educate Americans about new federal dietary guidelines released in January.
Click to expand...

So Mellie, you going to develop and promote something like this in your classroom with a paper plate and construction paper for 2 cents? That was your claim after all.

Mellie said:
You're right. They don't. That's why we have teachers like myself who could create that $2 million Food Plate with a 2 cent paper plate and some construction paper.
Click to expand...
 
Gargantuan said:
Not necessarily. Whole grain pasta, brown rice, etc, is not going to raise your blood sugar levels that high. There is a difference between simple carbs, which you seem to be thinking are all carbs, and complex carbs, which is what the majority of that 65 percent should be (about a 55 to 10 ratio). Simple carbs (also called simple sugars) will cause a spike in blood sugar, followed by insulin release from the pancreas, which = fat storage. If you are taking in your maintenance level of calories daily, you are not going to store any more fat regardless of whether you are eating carbs or fats or proteins. Low carb diets have been thrown out a long time ago and the weight loss people see on them has been shown to be nothing more than due to caloric restriction of low carb diets.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about "low carb diets". Diets are always fads that take a good idea and stretch it out to an extreme to try and sell "quick weight loss". And I know people that supposedly "follow" low carb diets, which they turn into "no-carb diets" afraid that any carb will make them fat, and then they fall off and gorge. All carbs are eventually broken down to their simplest form, which is going to eventually be glucose. Simple sugars cause a spike because of how little work needs to be done to break them down. But when you think about it in a chronic sense, meaning over the course of years, having a high carb diet is going to increase your CBG levels, and result in obesity and/or type II diabetes (if sednetary). Glycemic indexes are a better determinant of what kind of carbs you should eat, rather than just thinking bread is better than sugar. It's all eventually sugar. When you see massively obese people, they didn't get that way on steak, chicken, eggs, etc...They likely got that way via massive amounts of carbs across the spectrum. French fries, soda, cereal, pasta, etc....And then they compound the problem by their cells becoming insulin resistant because so much insulin is released all the time.
 
Mellie said:
First Lady Reveals New Food

ht_new_food_plate_nt_110602_wg.jpg
Click to expand...

I think its a waste of money. Telling people to eat healthy is not going to do squat. I don't know about your grandparents but mine did not eat healthy food.They ate hamburgers,french fried, candy bars, organ meats and all sorts of other unhealthy food. They did not have fat free, low calorie, zero transfat, or lot of other stuff we take for granted. But yet there was no obesity epidemic. back then.



Maybe if the schools where kids eat breakfast and lunch at for five days a week started serving healthy food,banned vending machines, made PE/gym mandatory, and maybe once a week take the kids out on a walk as part of some science class or social studies activity or have them walk to a park as a field trip.
 
jamesrage said:
I think its a waste of money. Telling people to eat healthy is not going to do squat. I don't know about your grandparents but mine did not eat healthy food.They ate hamburgers,french fried, candy bars, organ meats and all sorts of other unhealthy food. They did not have fat free, low calorie, zero transfat, or lot of other stuff we take for granted. But yet there was no obesity epidemic. back then.



Maybe if the schools where kids eat breakfast and lunch at for five days a week started serving healthy food,banned vending machines, made PE/gym mandatory, and maybe once a week take the kids out on a walk as part of some science class or social studies activity or have them walk to a park as a field trip.
Click to expand...

While I agree, if they're going to promote something, this is better than the previous.
 
Redress said:
Wow! Holy ****! Mrs. Obama is not, in any way, shape or form, at an unhealthy weight. I mean seriously, this has to be one of the stupidest things I have read here in awhile.
Click to expand...

Yeah - she only gained at least 40 lbs.
 
Redress said:
Kate%20Middleton%20Michelle%20Obama%20meeting%20May%202011.jpg


That image is from May 2011. Michelle Obama is 5'11. For a medium frame woman, that puts her ideal weight at 145-159. Height and Weight Chart - height weight chart, weight height chart

Are you trying to suggest she is over that weight? You have any evidence? Do you have any other stupid complaints?
Click to expand...

You don't feel the same way I do - why on earth are you so defensive about my critical view of another female?

I don't see you swooping into someone else's defense *ahem*
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You don't feel the same way I do - why on earth are you so defensive about my critical view of another female?

I don't see you swooping into someone else's defense *ahem*
Click to expand...

I hate stupid complaints, no matter who makes them nor who the complaints are directed at. You made a claim, it looks to be false. I looked at every picture of Mrs. Obama I could find for the last month and in none of them does she look overweight, and certainly not heavy enough to be unhealthy. So, you said she has put on 40 pounds, and that she is "getting a little thick". Leaving aside the fact she is 47(ie an age when most people do put on weight do to a change in metabolism), she is not thick enough to be overweight. Not that this has anything to do with the food plate, but you are the one to make the stupid, snide, catty comment.

I realize when you can't whine about something, but still have to cry, it's easiest to take cheap pot shots at the person involved, but it doesn't make it smart, or a good debate technique.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - slightly off subject - but I have a serious problem taking any such advise from soemone who doesn't look like they're practiciing what they preach.

I see Mrs Obama getting a little thick and don't imagine she remotely follows the food pyramid. In the same way I don't think that a aesthetician with acne knows a single thing about proper skin care. Or like the overweight gym instructor at my kid's elementary school.

*shrug*

maybe I'm snide :)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Aunt Spiker. This photo is from the trip to England. I see a very fit woman. Her clavicals are visible. She's not a stick figure, to be sure, she's curvy, but she is not fat.

e55c5d9bc4afd30e.jpg.jpg
 
WI Crippler said:
I'm not talking about "low carb diets". Diets are always fads that take a good idea and stretch it out to an extreme to try and sell "quick weight loss". And I know people that supposedly "follow" low carb diets, which they turn into "no-carb diets" afraid that any carb will make them fat, and then they fall off and gorge. All carbs are eventually broken down to their simplest form, which is going to eventually be glucose. Simple sugars cause a spike because of how little work needs to be done to break them down. But when you think about it in a chronic sense, meaning over the course of years, having a high carb diet is going to increase your CBG levels, and result in obesity and/or type II diabetes (if sednetary). Glycemic indexes are a better determinant of what kind of carbs you should eat, rather than just thinking bread is better than sugar. It's all eventually sugar. When you see massively obese people, they didn't get that way on steak, chicken, eggs, etc...They likely got that way via massive amounts of carbs across the spectrum. French fries, soda, cereal, pasta, etc....And then they compound the problem by their cells becoming insulin resistant because so much insulin is released all the time.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's exactly what I said in pretty much my entire post. I don't disagree with any of that other than the fact that having a healthy amount of carbs (60-65) makes you insulin resistant. That's simply not true unless all of these carbs are coming from simple sugars.
 
Mellie said:
It's a waste of money, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is a waste of money but is more simple than the old food pyramid so maybe more people will be able to undersand it now. Having said that? Do we really think people that overeat are gonna give a crap or pay any attention to this new food plate? I don't think so. lol.

So yeah waste of money in a time when this money could be spent on much better things:)
 
Gina said:
I'm sorry Aunt Spiker. This photo is from the trip to England. I see a very fit woman. Her clavicals are visible. She's not a stick figure, to be sure, she's curvy, but she is not fat.

e55c5d9bc4afd30e.jpg.jpg
Click to expand...

I'd do her. :lol:
 
jamesrage said:
Maybe if the schools where kids eat breakfast and lunch at for five days a week started serving healthy food,banned vending machines, made PE/gym mandatory, and maybe once a week take the kids out on a walk as part of some science class or social studies activity or have them walk to a park as a field trip.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience as a teacher that if a kid doesn't want to eat it, he won't. If you put a plate full of fruits and veggies on a tray for lunch and he only likes apples, he's just going to eat apples. Some kids barely eat anything off their trays. They know their parents will feed them whatever they want when they get home. So I'm not sure what the solution is there...

I don't think there should be vending machines in schools. If a students wants to eat crap, he can bring it from home.

I agree that PE should be mandatory for at least 2 times a week. And they need to be taught how to be healthy, not just how to play games.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - slightly off subject - but I have a serious problem taking any such advise from soemone who doesn't look like they're practiciing what they preach.

I see Mrs Obama getting a little thick and don't imagine she remotely follows the food pyramid. In the same way I don't think that a aesthetician with acne knows a single thing about proper skin care. Or like the overweight gym instructor at my kid's elementary school.

*shrug*

maybe I'm snide :)
Click to expand...

I think Mrs. Obama looks fine. She's pear-shaped, so she's a little thicker on the bottom than the top. I wouldn't say she's overweight at all.
 
pbrauer said:
The war in Iraq was a total waste of money and lives, I think this has value. Don't sweat the small stuff Mellie.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the wars in the middle east have no value at all, but this food plate, it's the ****ing Holy Grail of health. :roll:

I was going to comment that I didn't think the 2 mil in this graphic was any big deal, then I run into to comments like this. You are your party's own worst enemy sometimes, Pete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom