"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org... 

> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new. 

Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
> 
>> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
>> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".
> 
> Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I
> went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child
> there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.

That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.

But food-related health issues certainly have been around.  Logically, we 
now know things about (for example) fat content, sodium consumption, 
sugars, and so on that we didn't know 30 years ago.

Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too - 
"moderation".  We've certainly gone through "eggs are bad for you," "eggs 
are good for you," back and forths over the last 10-15 years that have 
led me to not really trust any of it beyond moderating intake of 
everything.  Fast food once in a while is OK.  Fast food as a steady 
diet?  Not so much.

>> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about
> 
> I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to talk
> radio.

That's probably a better way to stay sane, certainly. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:27 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.
> 
> Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.

I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet, 
Stephen M. ;) ) - it's been a weird day today with the work I'm trying to 
do being superceded by MS Office problems.  Again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/30/2013 05:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
>>> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".
>>
>> Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I
>> went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child
>> there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.
>
> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.

I just did an image search for "obesity timeline." I don't have time to 
examine any individual studies, but there seems to be a consensus.

>
> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too -
> "moderation".

I hear that often, but the obesity trend demonstrates that our idea of 
moderate isn't.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:27 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.
> >
> > Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.
>
> I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet,
> Stephen M. ;) )

Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <non### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523f3d6e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays
> > by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for example,
> > said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when
> > they were kids.
>
> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
>
> Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

That is called growing up and putting aside childish things.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen"  wrote in message 
news:web.524aa68bcafa64a77d8c6e9c0@news.povray.org...

"Shay" <non### [at] nonenone> wrote:
>>
>> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
>>
> >Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

> That is called growing up and putting aside childish things.

No, *collectively* we were less-childish in the recent past. My growing up 
has little to do with it. My 16-year-old self would have been "too old for 
this shit."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
> >> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".
> >
> > Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I
> > went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child
> > there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.
>
> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.

Have a look at films from the 60's and 70's. There is very seldom a fat child
unless it is to laugh at. And even then you would not think of them as fat
nowadays. :-(

>
> But food-related health issues certainly have been around.  Logically, we
> now know things about (for example) fat content, sodium consumption,
> sugars, and so on that we didn't know 30 years ago.
>
> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too - 
"moderation".

That is my maxim too. Moderation in everything, including moderation.
It is okay (IMO) to go off the rails, once in a while.


> We've certainly gone through "eggs are bad for you," "eggs
> are good for you," back and forths over the last 10-15 years that have
> led me to not really trust any of it beyond moderating intake of
> everything.

"Eggs" have two problems. Dairy food is good for you and dairy food is bad for
you, arguments. And salmonella in the food chain.

> Fast food once in a while is OK.  Fast food as a steady
> diet?  Not so much.
>

Master of the understatement, you are.

> >> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about
> >
> > I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to talk
> > radio.
>
> That's probably a better way to stay sane, certainly. ;)
>

Talk radio turns your brain to mush and television caters for those with an
attention span not much above that of a goldfish.
All IMO, of course.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:38:12 -0400, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:27 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> >> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.
>> >
>> > Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.
>>
>> I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet,
>> Stephen M. ;) )
> 
> Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)

Of course I did, that's why I warned you off. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:02:15 -0400, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> >> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact,
>> >> food related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old
>> >> days".
>> >
>> > Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise
>> > me. I went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago.
>> > Every child there would have been considered overweight when we were
>> > kids.
>>
>> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.
> 
> Have a look at films from the 60's and 70's. There is very seldom a fat
> child unless it is to laugh at. And even then you would not think of
> them as fat nowadays. :-(

"Fat Albert" is a counterexample.  OK, it was a cartoon, but still.

That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.  Hollywood makes 
intentional choices (most of the time) for reasons.  That they didn't 
show any overweight people (or rarely did) just means that they made that 
choice, not that overweight people didn't exist.

>> But food-related health issues certainly have been around.  Logically,
>> we now know things about (for example) fat content, sodium consumption,
>> sugars, and so on that we didn't know 30 years ago.
>>
>> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too - 
>> "moderation".
> 
> That is my maxim too. Moderation in everything, including moderation.
> It is okay (IMO) to go off the rails, once in a while.

Yep. :)

>> We've certainly gone through "eggs are bad for you," "eggs are good for
>> you," back and forths over the last 10-15 years that have led me to not
>> really trust any of it beyond moderating intake of everything.
> 
> "Eggs" have two problems. Dairy food is good for you and dairy food is
> bad for you, arguments. And salmonella in the food chain.

And better ways of dealing with those problems now than in the past.

>> Fast food once in a while is OK.  Fast food as a steady diet?  Not so
>> much.
>>
>>
> Master of the understatement, you are.

I was looking for an obvious example. ;)

>> >> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about
>> >
>> > I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to
>> > talk radio.
>>
>> That's probably a better way to stay sane, certainly. ;)
>>
>>
> Talk radio turns your brain to mush and television caters for those with
> an attention span not much above that of a goldfish.
> All IMO, of course.

The Internet does a lot of that as well, unfortunately.

Jim

Post a reply to this message