It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Let Them Eat Cake!"

page: 9
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BlaznRob
 




First off, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, namely the OP, not with those who disagree with him.


I have no problem engaging in fruitful discussion on the subject, but I will not be baited into posting material that will not even be considered by someone who is only interested in winning an argument as opposed to determining the truth.



Here's a study done which flat out disproves that rediculous statement.


I thank you for posting the link, and concede that preserved vegetables are not as unhealthy as I had originally believed, though there are other factors to be considered in these packaged foods.

Fresh vegetables are generally considered to be the most nutritious, but quickly lose that value the longer they are kept. Furthermore, produce is often exposed to processes which will prevent spoilage, while the nutritional value is rapidly depleted. Packaged vegetables are subject to these same conditions, before being preserved.

Canned vegetables have added chemical and preservatives. Much of the nutrition is dilluted by the packing solution which is commonly drained before serving. Probably about as nutritious as boiled vegetables, but with the danger of additives. We are left to wonder if they were packaged at their optimum nutritional level. Take canned tomatos for example. Never use tomato paste, only whole canned tomatos. The better tomatos are canned whole, while the poor grade ones are crushed. The more processed they are, the worse the original tomatos were.

Frozen veggies do not keep as well as canned over time. Nutritional depletion happens more slowly than fresh, but does still occur in the freezer nevertheless. So it seems that it is better to use your frozen veggies right away, like you would fresh produce, instead of storing them in your freezer for any real length of time.




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Oh my god come on. You mean the 2 cents of water and 1 cent for detergent? Give me a break !!!


It costs dollars per day to keep a hot-water heater running, even if you don't use much. Then add the cost of running a well-pump or paying a municipal water supply. Or calculate the cost to someone who does not have running water, such as someone who rents a room. They will have to pay for bottled water at more than a dollar per gallon. Three or four dollars for a bottle of detergent may not be much to you, but is a luxury to others.

And forget about it if you want to talk about the cost of running a dishwasher. The lazy route for certain, but also considered to be a fair trade-off in a time-strapped family.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by gluetrap
 


There's nothing wrong with having a treat, maybe even a little more than once in a while, so long as you are being diligent in your eating habits. Fast food, wether out or from the freezer section, should not be the staple it has become for the majority of Americans and for various reasons.



I mean seriously how hard is it to rip up some lettuce (not Iceberg)and chop a tomato


Pretty hard if you don't have the lettuce or the tomato. Not to mention that it's not really worth the trouble anyway unless you're buying the expensive stuff that still has some nutrients left in it.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Specifically relating obesity to poverty, the fattest states also have the highest poverty levels overall. Mississippi has an obesity prevelance of more than 30%, while 21.1% of the people live below the poverty line. Louisiana and West Virginia are also among the poorest and fattest states in the nation.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


Thank you for the link. I think some people here didn't bother to look at it.


A recent analysis of a range of staple foods in Canada including potatoes, tomatoes, bananas, apples, onion, broccoli etc, was commissioned by The Globe and Mail and CTV news. The results were predictable to some and a shock to others. Let's use potatoes as an example. This is what the analysis found:

Over the last 50 years the potato has lost:

100% of its Vitamin A
57% of its Vitamin C and iron.
28% of its Calcium.
50% of its riboflavin
18% of its thiamine

Of the seven nutrients analyzed only niacin levels had increased. The results were similar for all the 25 fruits and vegetables tested. One of the worst results was from broccoli in which ALL nutrients had declined measurably including niacin with Calcium down 63%.

The Globe and Mail and CTV used comparative figures from government researchers for the years 1951, 1972 and 1999. These earlier figures had been published in various scientific journals in the UK including the British Food journal. Release of this data in the US has been limited to a few alternative health journals.


Gee, I wonder why release of data to the US has been limited?



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





The reason the quality in food has gone down is because we have to support a much too large population on this planet and we are wasteful.



I had thought this for a long time, but are we really there yet? Or is this more NWO propoganda? Are they training us to accept the lower standards and eventually open depopulation campaigns, simply because this is what nature has ordained? Or are they doing this for profit and consolidation of power? If you accept that there are simply too many people in the world, then you must also accept that the population growth must be halted and reversed as quickly as possible. How convenient for the NWO agenda.

If being wasteful were really that much of a concern, our leaders would be doing something about it. Instead, they do nothing, revealing their true intentions and motivations.


I read a very inclusive study performed a few years ago regarding planet health and total population. The study concluded that the maximum population that could be sustained on all levels while keeping balance with planet health, would be 3.1 billion. The current world population is approx. 6,647,658,287.

I don't agree that someone is intentionally trying to cause depopulation but thought I'd post the info anyway.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Actually canned fruits and vegetables don't have any added preservatives or chemicals (unless you buy it in salt or syrup). The canning process preserves the canned food, all that is needed is for the food to be sterilised through cooking and then it's sealed into a can. You can eat canned food straight from the can if you're desperate because it's already cooked and cleaned.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Ok I'm going touse myself as an example.

I eat a lot of fruit and vegetables and stay away from ready meals and fast food. I even check the salt content of my bread to make sure that I'm not getting too much salt.

I'm not fat. I don't have scurvey. I don't have rickets. I don't have a compromised immune system from a lack of nutrients or am malnourishmesy I'm quite tallish for my gender showing that I've always gotten decent nutrition despite being raised on cheap vegetables.

Domesticated food has always been of lesser quality than wild food. This is a fact of life. Hunter gatheres have a better diet because they eat wild food. Undomesticated meat is low in cholestoral causing fats. Wild plants are low in crap carbs. Agriculture has always lowered the quality in food and with 6.5 billion people it will of course lower it some more. However, if you eat vegetables and fruits you will be healthy compared to fast fooders. I'm proof really...



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jfj123
 



Oh my god come on. You mean the 2 cents of water and 1 cent for detergent? Give me a break !!!


It costs dollars per day to keep a hot-water heater running, even if you don't use much.

It depends on the size of the water heater, mineral deposits inside the heater, the temps. the heater is set to, etc. For a 40 gal tank that is well used, the cost is approx. $1.15 per day for all hot water use. Also, you don't need to use hot water to clean your dishes-I never do.

Soap for dishes:
34 oz. Ajax concentrated dish soap in my area is $2.64 including tax. I cook every day and one bottle lasts me 4 months so the cost per day is $.02 per day (2 cents per day).


Then add the cost of running a well-pump or paying a municipal water supply.

I have a well pump and the cost is approx $10.00 per month to run for everything. City water is more expensive.


Or calculate the cost to someone who does not have running water, such as someone who rents a room.

They go to the bathroom somewhere. That bathroom has a sink I bet.


They will have to pay for bottled water at more than a dollar per gallon.

I would assume it depends where you are in the country. Where I am, you can buy distilled water on sale for as low as $.50 per gal. That's when I stock up.


Three or four dollars for a bottle of detergent may not be much to you, but is a luxury to others.

Read above.


And forget about it if you want to talk about the cost of running a dishwasher.

If you are extremely poor you probably don't have a dish washer. If you have one, they're not very expensive to run a few times a week.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by gluetrap
 


I mean seriously how hard is it to rip up some lettuce (not Iceberg)and chop a tomato


Pretty hard if you don't have the lettuce or the tomato. Not to mention that it's not really worth the trouble anyway unless you're buying the expensive stuff that still has some nutrients left in it.


Just curious but in what area of the United States are these items not available?



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


Thank you for the link. I think some people here didn't bother to look at it.



Over the last 50 years the potato has lost:

100% of its Vitamin A
57% of its Vitamin C and iron.
28% of its Calcium.
50% of its riboflavin
18% of its thiamine

Of the seven nutrients analyzed only niacin levels had increased. The results were similar for all the 25 fruits and vegetables tested. One of the worst results was from broccoli in which ALL nutrients had declined measurably including niacin with Calcium down 63%.

Do you know why the reason for the nutrient drops? Are you implying that the NWO is doing this on purpose?



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Ok let's be honest here. The majority of fat people aren't so poor that they have to buy fast food because they can't afford to do the washign up. Youu get rich fatties, you get middle class fatties, you get working class fatties.


I don't know about you but whoever is living in a shed and eating burgers isn't living in reality. Why pay 2 pounds for a burger when a loaf of bread is a pound or less, and a tomato is like 20p... That loaf of bread will last longer too. I give homeless people money all the time, they can buy that loaf of bread instead of a ready made sandwich or a big mac but they choose not to. You dont' need fancy implements to eat bread and bite into a tomato.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



I read a very inclusive study performed a few years ago regarding planet health and total population. The study concluded that the maximum population that could be sustained on all levels while keeping balance with planet health, would be 3.1 billion. The current world population is approx. 6,647,658,287.


I'm sure there are plenty of "inclusive" studies that support the NWO agenda of depopulation. Their target threshold is about a half-billion people, no more.

If you have a link to the study I would be interested to read it.



I don't agree that someone is intentionally trying to cause depopulation but thought I'd post the info anyway.


I very much recommend that "doubters" watch the ATS Premium Video ENDGAME. This is a good overview of the current state of affairs, and exactly who is planning what. The Bilderbergs ain't playin' poker behind them closed doors.




[edit on 2/8/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Hey jackinthebox,

I haven't fully read this thread yet, but here is something that's somewhat pertinent to your opening post that you might be interested in:

Lower-income neighborhoods associated with higher obesity rates

Obesity prevalence has increased significantly among adults and children in the U.S. over the last two decades. A new study appearing in the journal Nutrition Reviews reveals that characteristics of neighborhoods, including the area’s income level, the built environment, and access to healthy food, contribute to the continuing obesity epidemic.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by monkey_descendant
 



Actually canned fruits and vegetables don't have any added preservatives or chemicals (unless you buy it in salt or syrup). The canning process preserves the canned food, all that is needed is for the food to be sterilised through cooking and then it's sealed into a can. You can eat canned food straight from the can if you're desperate because it's already cooked and cleaned.


The cooking process depletes nutrients. There is no way to determine of the canned goods were exposed to other processes which deplete nutrients before they were canned.

I often eat canned fruits and vegetables cold from the can.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by monkey_descendant
 



Ok I'm going touse myself as an example.


You may have been able to dodge the obesity bullet, but there is really no way to determine the long-term effects of a low-nutrition diet. Many of these ailments come later in life. Furthermore, you still have to eat at least twice as much of the "good" food to obtain the proper nutrients, meaning you will have to spend at least twice as much, considering the depletion of nutrients in our food over the past few decades.



Domesticated food has always been of lesser quality than wild food. This is a fact of life. Hunter gatheres have a better diet because they eat wild food. Undomesticated meat is low in cholestoral causing fats. Wild plants are low in crap carbs. Agriculture has always lowered the quality in food ...


Humans have been eating domesticated food for over ten-thousand years. How does one explain a better than fifty-percent drop in food quality in a matter of decades?



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



It depends on the size of the water heater, mineral deposits inside the heater, the temps. the heater is set to, etc. For a 40 gal tank that is well used, the cost is approx. $1.15 per day for all hot water use. Also, you don't need to use hot water to clean your dishes-I never do.


Not using hot water to clean your dishes is dangerous. Without it, you will be ingesting residual detergent, and/or you will not have removed bacteria. In fact, the hot water is more important than detergent. Restaurants use extremely hot water instead of detergent.

The cost per day is also dependant the fuel used, and the temperature where the tank is located. Without using the stove, leaving only the water-heater on the gas line, the bill at my last apartment was $55 for the month or $1.83 per day and rising rapidly with fuel costs. This was with the heater set on "low."

EDIT to add: I also did not use hot water for showers very often, using the shower at the gym instead.



They go to the bathroom somewhere. That bathroom has a sink I bet.


Most rooming houses do not allow eating in the rooms, for obvious reasons. The people who sneak food into their rooms are not about blow their cover and be tossed out by bringing their dishes down to the public restroom.



If you are extremely poor you probably don't have a dish washer. If you have one, they're not very expensive to run a few times a week.


I have never had a dishwasher myself, but they just seem like a very ineffecient use of resources. Loads of detergent, large amounts of hot water running constantly, and the electricity to drive the machine. Many poor people actually do have dishwashers that were built in when the complexes were constructed. There are also a lot of people who have become poor since moving to their home.





[edit on 2/8/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Just curious but in what area of the United States are these items not available?


Anywhere you can't afford it. Anywhere you don't have a place to store it or prepare it.

In my current situation I have no cold storage, or a place to prepare foods much of them time.

If I want salad, I have to splurge at the fast-food joint for a salad sprayed with chemicals and flavor enhancers.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Do you know why the reason for the nutrient drops? Are you implying that the NWO is doing this on purpose?


Well, they're not doing it by accident. Especially when you look at the profits rolling in.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by monkey_descendant
 



Ok let's be honest here. The majority of fat people aren't so poor that they have to buy fast food because they can't afford to do the washign up. Youu get rich fatties, you get middle class fatties, you get working class fatties.


As I have said, there is a wide variety of reasons individually. The only majority that stands out is the American population as a whole, which has gotten very fat very fast. This is because our food supply is driven by profits, and not sustenace.



I don't know about you but whoever is living in a shed and eating burgers isn't living in reality. Why pay 2 pounds for a burger when a loaf of bread is a pound or less, and a tomato is like 20p... That loaf of bread will last longer too. I give homeless people money all the time, they can buy that loaf of bread instead of a ready made sandwich or a big mac but they choose not to. You dont' need fancy implements to eat bread and bite into a tomato.


A loaf of cheap white bread is no more nutritious than fast food. The same goes for the tomato that has been stripped of nutrients by time it hits the produce market. You must also consider price by volume. More food in the stomach is more important than better food in the stomach if you don't know when you will eat again. Furthermore, a homeless person does not have a place to store food without running the risk of being attacked for it, or having it stolen while they're not looking.

I also see that there is a significant price difference between your figures and here in NY. Are you British, in London? I think you may have said already.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join