The horrible diet of the average American is reprehensible and is certainly a significant factor in the most important health concerns - obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, etc.

But the medical establishment has been touting the myriad benefits of a healthy diet for DECADES. And every single time more evidence emerges that a healthy diet produces a particular health benefit, they cry to the heavens and are ignored by the public.

The lack of a war on toxic food can be laid directly, and almost completely, at the feet of all of us too lazy to make the changes necessary. Ask any doctor. The most exasperating part of his job is telling patients over and over and over, "You have to eat less junk food and exercise more or your diabetes/obesity/blood pressure/heart disease/etc is just going to get worse" only to be ignored until the patient gets seriously ill and blames the doctor for not doing more.

But if you're asking doctors to aggressively promote theories of disease that aren't supported by the evidence, then you're asking too much and asking the wrong things of them.

I do wonder if the profit in treating the conditions brought on by the poor typical american diet has encouraged the medical establishment to be less aggressive than it needs to be when it comes to stressing the links between food and disease

The military establishment is relatively easy to identify. But the medical establishment? You're talking about a much more vast, complicated, and diverse web of voices, bodies, and histories.

But then this discussion can spiral into endless complexities.

Where does the poor diet come from? The relative affordability of mass-produced junk foods? Then the problem is economic.

But does the poor diet come from ignorance of what is healthy? In today's climate, that seems unlikely, but it's possible.

Does it come from aggressive marketing of patently unhealthy foods? Perhaps. But the relatively recent trend of promoting healthier, low-fat foods even by the most egregious historical offenders (McDonald's) would belie that and suggest that demand, not supply, is driving the trend.

It's one of the most pressing issues in our country, IMO, and it's also one of the most complicated because it ultimately comes down to the most private and personal of behaviors.

Here's a basic idea of healthy living:

We should eat raw fruits, nuts, and vegetables rather than cooked meat, cheese and bread. And we should continuously use our muscles and bodies rather than sit in office chairs 8 hours every day.

Modern Western lifestyle runs opposite to this basic idea, and the evidence where that is leading us is overwhelming.

I just think that the typical American diet gets shittier every year, and I blame that on powerful financial interests, the media, and the government, just like I blame 9/11, fiat currency, perpetual war, and general stupidity on powerful financial interests, the media, and the government.

One reason people eat unhealthy food is because it tastes good. Also, there is a lot of money to be made selling healthy and organic food. The CEO of Whole Foods is no lefty, and that corporation makes a tidy profit selling high quality, largely healthy food at a high price.

In the Chicago area most big grocery stores carry a lot of healthy food; again, there's profit to be made there. I think people are more health-concious than ever. But it's hard for most people to eat rice cakes and tofu when you could be eating cheeseburgers and potato chips.

But I guess it's more plausible to blame fiat currency and 9/11.

eta: I missed Ty's last couple posts; I realize I'm partially repeating what he said...

larsxe wrote:Here's a basic idea of healthy living:

We should eat raw fruits, nuts, and vegetables rather than cooked meat, cheese and bread. And we should continuously use our muscles and bodies rather than sit in office chairs 8 hours every day.

Modern Western lifestyle runs opposite to this basic idea, and the evidence where that is leading us is overwhelming.

Oh man. Not this raw food thing.

Cooking is not the problem. Meat is not the problem.

I've never heard a single credible doctor or other medical voice say that HFCS is safe in moderation. Same thing for saturated fats, aspartame, etc.

They say that meat is fine in moderation. Ditto for most whole foods. And they are. Now, as for hormones, antibiotics, and the like, that's still being investigated. Those things seem prima facie to be a bad idea and they are. But superficial evidence is not how laboratory or clinical science works and evidence is required. It is emerging. The growing demand for organic foods isn't merely a marketing gimmick and has grown at least partially, if not largely, because of scientific evidence that has trickled into the mainstream.

You're diving headlong into the tall weeds again in your last 2 paragraphs, and I have no interest in following you there.

What's their definition of a healthy diet?

The medical establishment's definition of a healthy diet? Let's see what Mayo Clinic, one of the most influential (if I'm not mistaken) "Western" medical places has to say:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegeta ... et/HQ01596

A well-planned vegetarian diet is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs. Find out what you need to know about a plant-based diet.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/whole-grains/NU00204

Whole grains: Hearty options for a healthy diet
Find out why whole grains are better than refined grains and how you can add more whole grains to your diet.

More:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-a ... on/NU99999


Those bastards!!!!!!

Whom in the medical establishment is encouraging eating a lot of red meat, fat, corn syrup and MSG?

9/11 was bad.

OK, you lost me there.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:I've never heard a single credible doctor or other medical voice say that HFCS is safe in moderation. Same thing for saturated fats, aspartame, etc.

Are you out of your mind? Is the FDA a 'medical voice'? Are HFCS, aspartame, and saturated fats approved for human consumption? Yes? Then that means that the medical establishment has pronounced them safe in moderation.

Ty Webb wrote:You're diving headlong into the tall weeds again in your last 2 paragraphs, and I have no interest in following you there.

Who gives a crap? Like I need to hear what some bonghead conspiracyphobe who believes that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack thinks. If I can't make you bump my thread, I'll bump it myself.

That only took you 2 pages. You must be feeling magnanimous tonight. And you certainly did need to hear what I think until I refused to follow you into your usual paranoid labyrinth. Then the typical Clocker Bob ad hominem tripwires went off and it was business as usual.

And yes, I know you'll bump yourself. Every night. Feverishly.

Heh. Yeah, Bob. You're really showin' me! Now call me some names again and pull my hair!