Can't we sum this whole debate up in three words..."everything in moderation"?

Rikkitic:

 

Enjoy.

 

I will, but I bet it ends up like carls jr, really good to start with and then standards slip no end making it at best mediocre on most visits.

Rikkitic:

 

Eat what you like.

 

Finally. 

People here really get prickly when it comes to their junk food. I find that intriguing.

Rikkitic:

 

People here really get prickly when it comes to their junk food. I find that intriguing.

 

 

 

Classic deflection! Although I suspect it's true to a reasonable extent, they also get prickly about assertions that can't or won't be backed up by those making them. I find that more in the broadband space than in junk food arguments, but the principle is the same... If someone makes a claim then they should back it up properly.

Cheers - N

Rikkitic:

 

People here really get prickly when it comes to their junk food. I find that intriguing.

 

People tend to get prickly about personal indulgences and the prospect of having them banned/taxed because some people in our society lack the self-discipline to indulge safely.

MikeAqua:

 

Rikkitic:

 

People here really get prickly when it comes to their junk food. I find that intriguing.

 

 

People tend to get prickly about personal indulgences and the prospect of having them banned/taxed because some people in our society lack the self-discipline to indulge safely.

 

Yeah, that too!

N

Kiwifruta:

 

This is Tex-Mex at its worst. Had it once (taco Bell) in the States, a few days after a visit to a genuine Mexican restaurant in Las Vegas, as different as canned salmon is to fresh salmon.

 

Yeah. It's rubbish. 

Linuxluver:

 

Kiwifruta:

 

This is Tex-Mex at its worst. Had it once (taco Bell) in the States, a few days after a visit to a genuine Mexican restaurant in Las Vegas, as different as canned salmon is to fresh salmon.

 

 

Yeah. It's rubbish. 

 

Tex Mex can be terrible.   Both Mexican and Texan food are better. 

MikeAqua:

 

People tend to get prickly about personal indulgences and the prospect of having them banned/taxed because some people in our society lack the self-discipline to indulge safely.

 

I don't think that's entirely fair - at least in terms of obesity which is what much of the debate is about.

I know plenty of self disciplined people who are overweight, I'm aware that "The Diet" and many other weight control measures have an appalling history of failure.

Hunger/satiation is a homeostatic process, flawed like some other human homeostasis mechanisms (even breathing), suggesting that the main cause is (lack of) self discipline and overeating is mainly voluntary seems to not be addressing the problem - which has been getting consistently worse.

I do believe that fast/convenience/processed food industries have consciously or unconsciously exploited a biological "wiring fault" in human beings in order to sell more and more bad (in excess) food.  There's a non-biological feedback mechanism at work there too, the better that works to sell more bad food - which it will do automatically, the more ubiquitous it becomes, and the more money is being made, and around we go.

To put it another way, I'm not overweight, but I don't seem to need any conscious effort, sacrifice, "self-discipline" over eating habits to stay that way.

Talkiet:

 

Classic deflection! Although I suspect it's true to a reasonable extent, they also get prickly about assertions that can't or won't be backed up by those making them. I find that more in the broadband space than in junk food arguments, but the principle is the same... If someone makes a claim then they should back it up properly.

 

Cheers - N

 

I did back up my assertions. I just didn't do it well enough. That doesn't make them untrue. I am not a qualified academic researcher and at my age I do not have the energy, patience or concentration to spend days unearthing references. Also not the motivation for a debate here which is going to be of passing interest at best, if I am honest. If people are that determined to prove me wrong, they can have it. But anyone who seriously believes that junk food is not unhealthy, or does not have addictive properties, or does not contribute to excessive weight gain, is fooling themselves. I just wish it was possible to shoot ahead 20 years in time to see how everyone's waistline is doing. Like smoking, the bad effects are not usually immediately apparent. You can often get way with it for a long time before you have to pay the price.

I am not trying to be the food police, despite what some may think. People should eat whatever they enjoy. I happen to think that food made with care from quality ingredients is far more enjoyable, and much less damaging, than the assembly line cardboard dross dished up in fast food places, but hey, that's just my opinion. I think the wall to wall tacky kiddie coloured instant oral gratification places lining both sides of the main streets into town are a depressing blight on the landscape. I think people are manipulated by unrestrained advertising but that is just what I think. I'm not about to go looking for references to back it up. It will forever remain my uninformed, unenlightened, sourpuss opinion.

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

People tend to get prickly about personal indulgences and the prospect of having them banned/taxed because some people in our society lack the self-discipline to indulge safely.

 

 

I don't think that's entirely fair - at least in terms of obesity which is what much of the debate is about.

 

I know plenty of self disciplined people who are overweight, I'm aware that "The Diet" and many other weight control measures have an appalling history of failure.

 

Hunger/satiation is a homeostatic process, flawed like some other human homeostasis mechanisms (even breathing), suggesting that the main cause is (lack of) self discipline and overeating is mainly voluntary seems to not be addressing the problem - which has been getting consistently worse.

 

I do believe that fast/convenience/processed food industries have consciously or unconsciously exploited a biological "wiring fault" in human beings in order to sell more and more bad (in excess) food.  There's a non-biological feedback mechanism at work there too, the better that works to sell more bad food - which it will do automatically, the more ubiquitous it becomes, and the more money is being made, and around we go.

 

To put it another way, I'm not overweight, but I don't seem to need any conscious effort, sacrifice, "self-discipline" over eating habits to stay that way.

 

There are people with medical conditions who gain weight in a way that is beyond their control.  I should have specifically exclude them from my comments. Apologies.

I agree it's easier for some people than others, but each person has to find and stick to what works for them.  Put it this way: I'm the most fallible person I know and I gain weight easily.  If I can turn things around ...

The rest of us are the masters of our own destiny.  It's about self-regulation and for kids about parental responsibility.

I agree 100% that it's not about 'dieting'.  A diet is a temporary change.  What is needed is to change what we think of as normal food.   That's where the discipline is required.  It's mind over body - until your body and your micro-biota adjust.

It's pointless blaming businesses.  Where they set up shop and what they sell follows consumer demand.

MikeAqua:

 

There are people with medical conditions who gain weight in a way that is beyond their control.  I should have specifically exclude them from my comments. Apologies.

 

I agree it's easier for some people than others, but each person has to find and stick to what works for them.  Put it this way: I'm the most fallible person I know and I gain weight easily.  If I can turn things around ...

 

The rest of us are the masters of our own destiny.  It's about self-regulation and for kids about parental responsibility.

 

I agree 100% that it's not about 'dieting'.  A diet is a temporary change.  What is needed is to change what we think of as normal food.   That's where the discipline is required.  It's mind over body - until your body and your micro-biota adjust.

 

It's pointless blaming businesses.  Where they set up shop and what they sell follows consumer demand.

 

I almost, but not quite, agree with you on this. I believe a lot of consumer demand is created by unscrupulous advertising. Without it people would still eat fast food, but they would eat a lot less and they would do it for more of the right reasons (occasional treat, convenience when really necessary, fallback for unexpected circumstances). 

MikeAqua:

 

It's pointless blaming businesses.  Where they set up shop and what they sell follows consumer demand.

 

Its pointless blaming payday loans companies for charging 400% interest and truck-shops for turning up just before benefit day and selling stuff at a 500% markup. they only follow the consumer demand.

Its pointless blaming the meth labs and tinny houses, where they set up shop and what they sell follows consumer demand.

Its pointless blaming the contract killers and hit-men, they are only following consumer demand.

There are reasons that certain activities are considered unethical and/or illegal. There's not a bright line between all-good and definitely-bad.

Rikkitic:

 

People here really get prickly when it comes to their junk food. I find that intriguing.

 

People like myself are not prickly about "our" junk food because I don't personally eat it (aside from about once in a blue moon, followed by instant "why did I do that" regret!). What I am personally prickly about is people presuming upon themselves to lord it over others by dictating to them what they can eat by either banning or taxing the "unapproved" items.

Educate and then let people decide for themselves.