Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Early Childhood Obesity Rates are Slowing Nationwide

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donahue
And another thing to add, you only get fat when you don't exercise. You can burn off a major amount of calories after eating garbage by doing some good ol' fashion cardio. You can't substitute laziness with a magic diet pill or michelle obama's magical idea
edit on 2-1-2013 by Donahue because: (no reason given)




Healthy eating isn't some "magical idea"

it is a science called NUTRITION

and it used to be taught in schools

until some right wing nut jobs decided schools were no place for SCIENCE.

ALL the garbage people will eat doesn't always gets burned off.
It takes something like 7 years to digest a maraschino cherry as an example.




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


yeah, and like greg giraldo says, they have those wheelie shoes too... so they can roll around from snack to snack now.


Crazy.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Donahue
 


Actually that is a misconception, back in times the bigger the belly the opulent of the bearer now it only shows that cheap food and most of the food that are under the welfare programs are ridden with GMOs, refine sugar specially corn syrup and are actually changing the health of Americans it only has taken one generation to see the results of such diet.

People with financial means to buy better food are actually smaller in size than those in the low income class and working poor.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I'm not sure her program has caused much good, rather the fact that the first lady showed a marked interest in getting the nation fit. I think it's the awareness of the crisis and social pressuring which is changing things. You see a chunk of the population riding these fad waves of "crossfit" , "spartan races" and whatnot and the less fit are jelli.

I think there's a wave pushing people to become more fit, though it's unfortunate that once you gain the fat cells, they never go away. So it'll be a while yet before we see obesity rates really start to drop.
edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe that even the OP buys the suggestion that the Obama program is directly responsible for lower childhood obesity rates, knowing full well there isn't possibly enough data to draw such a conclusion.

All that's being said here is, "Look! The government is good for you! See!"; to use this correlation (when there is none) as justification for increased state control. The dressing used is "for the children" of course, but is largely irrelevant to the real message being sent.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jusvistn
I'm lucky enough that I can afford to feed my family, and feed them well, but my kids need some substinance in their meals and the school lunch just doesn't provide enough of that. My kids are healthy, thin but muscular and very very active! They need real food!

Thing is, for the folks that I know personally, kids are losing the weight b'cuz they don't have enough food at home, and the ones that are overweight, are still overweight, because they go home after not getting enough to eat and snack on empty calories in front of the tv.

They took away my sons organic oatmeal raisin cookies and gave him pretzles!!! I was furious! My son was bordering on UNDERweight and he NEEDED THAT FAT! In my opinion, the government has no right to tell me what I can and can not feed my family.


How ironic they took away those cookies, when in fact pretzels are just an empty calorie food, just carbs, and very high on the glycemic index. At least oatmeal cookies contain whole grains and raisins. Sheesh.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Actually on a cost by cost basis, it is not much more to eat healthily. A big pot of beans with some ground turkey will feed a family for days, very cheaply, and far more healthily than a big mac, and cheaper than a fast food meal for each person when you consider how many days you can eat off of it. Part of the problem is that they have shown that the high fat, sugar and carb levels in fast food is addictive, so people don't want to stop eating it.

Cooking education should be required with food stamps, I don't know how much it would help, though. It takes time and energy to cook, and a lot of working parents with kids don't want to be bothered. It would do them a world of good though, especially if everyone in the family is involved in the cooking process.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by artnut
 


Agreed, it doesn't cost much more to eat healthy.

What I don't understand is why food stamps can be used so liberally. Why the hell don't they have a system hooked up to those cards issued which can only be used in approved stores, or towards approved items?? It wouldn't be too difficult to set up. We already have data mining going on for our food habits if we choose to use supermarket "gift cards" on a regular basis.

Just set up a database on what people use for those cards issued, and if they use it for luxuries, or crappy food, then you simply deactivate the card. Give them a small pamphlet which shows what is approved, or disapproved, and what percentage of approved items they must charge to qualify for continued support.

Provide a website on the pamphlet which goes into further detail, and offers links to sites which give healthy recipes from the approved items list. Freaking easy.

Oh, and so that it's clear I'm not trying to say the government should decide if you're a vegetarian, or meat-eater, or whatever... let's keep it simple and agree that people have different preferences and needs that differ from individual to individual, but nobody needs twinkies, and sodas in their diet to survive. Junk foods should be the main item which are deemed unacceptable. Any whole food should be allowed.
edit on 3-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Agreed, it doesn't cost much more to eat healthy.


Actually it doesn't have to cost anything at all, if you and just a few of your friends/neighbors started growing your own food. It's really, really easy. But people have become so utterly dependent (needlessly, of course) on the grocery store and the production & distribution network that brings food to its shelves, that they don't know how to be human anymore.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther

Originally posted by unityemissions

Agreed, it doesn't cost much more to eat healthy.


Actually it doesn't have to cost anything at all, if you and just a few of your friends/neighbors started growing your own food. It's really, really easy. But people have become so utterly dependent (needlessly, of course) on the grocery store and the production & distribution network that brings food to its shelves, that they don't know how to be human anymore.


This is true, at least eventually after it is established. Where I live it is extremely difficult to grow vegetables, more difficult than any other place I have lived. You pretty much need education on this too. I used to volunteer at a theraputic nursery in a bad part of town (infants up to first grade). They had a garden (also to help subsidize operating costs), but it was amazing to watch a five year old eat a strawberry for the first time!

I think as a part of standard education, students should learn the process from farm to table, and why not how to grow your own food as well? Just as valuable as calculus in my opinion!

I understand Michelle Obama's intent, but there are just so many factors. I suspect as soon as most of the kids start complaining, parents will just make sure they bring their lunch, which will still have the junk. But I still disagree that a school has any right to control what a child eats. I also disagree that her program has anything to do with this based on the times given.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
Actually it doesn't have to cost anything at all, if you and just a few of your friends/neighbors started growing your own food. It's really, really easy. But people have become so utterly dependent (needlessly, of course) on the grocery store and the production & distribution network that brings food to its shelves, that they don't know how to be human anymore.


Eh, nothing's free. There's minimal, but real cost in planting most things.

Another point is the land which one may or may not have. If you live in an urban area, you may have no yard to work with, and may have to resort to indoor hydroponics/aquaponics. Then you're dealing with pump, nutrient solution, etc, etc...

I do think you have a point, though. Time is money. So if it's not being used up in one way, it's likely being done in another. It all depends on the laziness/willingness of individuals to see what they can truly do with what they've got, or how they can change their life situation to better fit their goals.

Most people seem to fail miserably, at least by my standards.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def