Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
katy wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. //Walt |
#12
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally. Frank Boettcher wrote: With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat more? ??? This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float, but how do they stay on top of the water?" Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion. Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this. Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue. ... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself. Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social norms... it's what everybody else is doing... ... Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question advertised claims of products they like. Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run 30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation. If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is. ... I can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight. But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good. (Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify) You just haven't had it when it's cooked right. ... I don't need the Government to tell me what they are. Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress to spend *less* money on any given issue. ... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs on the taboo list for many years. And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for one minute. DSK |
#13
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Dave wrote:
Before I begin, let me say I couldn't agree with you more that tariffs on sugar, like tariffs on most if not all goods are poor policy and should be abandoned. Agreeing with a condemned libby-rull? Wow Dave you're sliding down in the world. .... sugar is an good that creates it's own demand. The more of it people eat, the more they want, and there is a very high upper limit on that consumption... The first sentence is utter nonsense. Nothing creates its own demand. Well, it's an observable fact. Deny it all you want, doesn't change a thing. ... What you mean to say is that the demand curve is relatively flat. Not at all. If I meant to say that, that's what I would have said. ... That is, increasing the price by any given amount has only a small impact on the quantity demanded. What you're groping towards is a definition of elasticy vs inelasticity. But that's not the case. Refined sugar is a relatively new product. They've known how to make it for centruies, since cultivation of cane sugar was known. But it wasn't until well into the industrial age that people acquired a taste for it. Add to this, the huge number of market studies of sugary foods & drinks... there is no effective upper limit & people who buy them tend to buy more. In fact, I can think of two studies I've read the briefs on, wherein families given free sugary products went out and tripled their purchase of similar goods immediately after the study ended. Finally, let me refer you to Say's Law. Addressing the second point, if sugar sellers could maximize their profit by reducing prices so as to increase consumption, why would they lobby to have a tariff barrier in the first place? Because the tariff shifts the supply curve by eliminating from the market those foreign sellers whose marginal cost exceeds the free market price plus tariff. But the shift of the supply curve doesn't change the demand, and it doesn't change the shape of the curve. You're missing the basic point that the supply curves & demand curves for sugar... for a population that is accustomed to consuming it... is not the traditional slightly curved X shape from Econ 101. Remember that funny graph with two lines making an X in the middle of it? A bit old-fashioned, no doubt. And not particularly accurate in reflecting this particular situation. Tell me where I'm wrong. Wrong? Well, telling me "nonsense" is wrong. But your description of price effects & demand response is inaccurate. DSK |
#14
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
katysails wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Walt wrote: Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. With squirty cheese on top. DSK |
#15
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Walt wrote:
katy wrote: What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. //Walt I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served people and they never knew it wasn't sugar... |
#16
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
DSK wrote:
katysails wrote: What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda, Walt wrote: Splenda? I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket. With squirty cheese on top. DSK If you were saying Natrasweet or saccharin, I could understand...SPlenda does not have a chemical aftertaste and withstands temperature change, which Nutrasweet does not...and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like Nutrasweet... |
#17
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:51:31 -0500, DSK wrote:
It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally. Frank Boettcher wrote: With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat more? ??? This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float, but how do they stay on top of the water?" Not a good analogy. Advertising your wares as a choice among others does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that particular commodity just because it is advertised. Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion. Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this. Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue. ... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself. Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social norms... it's what everybody else is doing... ... Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question advertised claims of products they like. Not me. I don't believe any of them. Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run 30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation. If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is. I'm back. Went 7 because I felt good. That's how I do it. set a target mileage and then increase or decrease it based on how I feel. Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions. At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health benefits...... ... I can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight. But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good. (Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify) You just haven't had it when it's cooked right. ... I don't need the Government to tell me what they are. Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress to spend *less* money on any given issue. ... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs on the taboo list for many years. And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for one minute. DSK |
#18
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
Frank Boettcher wrote:
... Advertising your wares as a choice among others does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that particular commodity just because it is advertised. Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may or may not work on any given individual. However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good look at the world around you. Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions. At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health benefits...... Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners... some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence. Are you taking glucosamine? DSK |
#19
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy
wrote: Frank Boettcher wrote: How about letting individuals be less subjected to food I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that folly. The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were many who did not have food in the world...could never figure out how my eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in China...I was all for packing the stuff up and shipping it to Taiwan... My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we ate a healthy diet by default. Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad. What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff. Frank |
#20
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote: ... Advertising your wares as a choice among others does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that particular commodity just because it is advertised. Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may or may not work on any given individual. However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good look at the world around you. Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller, Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them buy or consume more beer. Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions. At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health benefits...... Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners... some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence. Are you taking glucosamine? No, I'm not (taking glucosamine), although I think it may be beneficial. And I only have the studies, my personal history, and individuals in the local running community who mirror the studies positive findings to go by. Could be the chicken and the egg. Those who don't have problems keep running, those that do, stop, and the studies only look at current runners. I never thought about it much, however my mother kept calling worrying about the same thing, so I started to look for studies to send her. It worked, she no longer worries about it. Frank DSK |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pretty but unsailable | Boat Building |