Is Nutrition Philosphical?

[Jakethehuman]

My arguments are as follows:

 

No person is an island and the people close to you have to live with all of your decisions whether it impacts them directly (hitting) or indirectly (dying early from a myriad of avoidable health related issues)

 

As a parent your food choices directly impact the health of your child, if those choices lead to diabetes and an early grave that is tantamount to physical abuse.

 

The information is readily accessible and there is no excuse for not knowing how to eat well, contrary to popular opinion eating healthy can be very cheap.

 

Nutrition is confusing but there are facts and the right way to eat is universal therefore once that lifestyle is well studied and understood any decision not to adhere to this diet is a semi-conscious choice to self-harm.

 

The same can be said for the hour of exercise a day we are meant to get, if you are choosing day in day out, week to week, month by month, year after year to not keep yourself in shape, you are making choices that will directly impact your life expectancy and quality of life in old age. 

 

So basically I'm wondering if it is immoral to leave children in the world early because of your bad decisions, and I'm comparing an unhealthy lifestyle to self-harm. 

[dsayers]

the people close to you have to live with all of your decisions

This isn't true. Because those people don't HAVE to be close to you.

 

Healthy people can die. Or get hit by a bus. Also, health is a general state and not the product of any single decision. And since it's internal, there is no moral component.

[Frederik]

So basically I'm wondering if it is immoral to leave children in the world early because of your bad decisions, and I'm comparing an unhealthy lifestyle to self-harm. 

 

I don't quite understand the first part of the sentence - could you please explain?

Apart from that, I find your argumentation very logical and convincing.

 

I have also come to the conclusion that nutrition can be highly productively philosophically examined and very useful principles can be extracted, making health decisions very easy to grasp. A healthy lifestlye must not be expensive.

 

Clearly, adults who are overweight, have chronic diseases, are very unfit, suffer from mental disorders, etc., and don't invest a reasonable amount of time into researching and working out the underlying causes, are acting in a self-destructive manner.

If they then raise children with this fundamental lack of knowledge about healthy lifestyle choices, they are, in my opinion, bad parents.

 

Whether it is immoral to raise a child that, as a consequence of his parents' lifestyle choices, suffers chronic illnesses , is an excellent question I never really thought about.

 

Hitting a child violates the NAP by constraining the person through the infliction of pain.

A child that, as a consequence of his parents' irresponsible lifestyle choices, becomes overweight and will likely develop multiple chronic illnesses like high blood pressure, diabetes, or chronic joint pain that go along with overweight, also suffers from pain through no fault of his own.

 

Therefore, I would conclude that a reasonable case could be made that teaching irresponsible lifestyle habits to children is indeed immoral.

[Kevin Beal]

As far as the titular question is concerned, philosophy is the all-discipline. Any domain you look at, where you define your terms and/or establish how to come to make valid truth claims is philosophy.

 

As far as UPB is concerned, only the things in which violence is justified in order to prevent classify as immoral. Neglecting a healthy diet is not an act that violence is justified in order to prevent. That's not to say that it's neutral or good, just not immoral, specifically. (AFAIK).

 

In having a child, and where knowledge is present or readily available, consistent neglect is a violation of an implicit contract. For example:

• Nobody sues a cigarette company when they get lung cancer, because it's readily available knowledge that it causes lung cancer, and you implicitly agree to their "terms & conditions" when you purchase.
• When you sit down at a table in a restaurant, you are obligated to pay after you eat, even though it's not stated up front.
• When you get a dog, you are on the hook for feeding it. If you starve it out of neglect, you are criminally liable.

To the degree that it's common knowledge (or the knowledge is readily available) is the degree to which "I didn't know nutrition was important" is an invalid excuse. Nutrition is extremely important for a ton of reasons, not least of which is brain function.

 

Just speaking personally, I feel contempt for parents who encourage their children's unhealthy eating habits. Seeing obese children fills me with rage. And it is an act of sublimated rage on the part of the parent too, I'm sure – to watch a child become obese. You cannot love someone and watch them do that without stopping it. It's equivalent to watching someone choke to death on the floor and stepping over their body while continuing to eat your cereal.

 

One of my favorite FDR podcasts is relevant here:

 

FDR728 Death by Neglect

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_728_Death_By_Neglect.mp3

[Jakethehuman]

This isn't true. Because those people don't HAVE to be close to you.

 

Healthy people can die. Or get hit by a bus. Also, health is a general state and not the product of any single decision. And since it's internal, there is no moral component.

 

Children don't have a choice.

 

Like I said diet and exercise are parts of a healthy lifestyle, these involve many daily choices. There is a single decision "I want to become healthy" and yes once you've made it involves many more decisions. 

Are you arguing there is no difference between a healthy person being hit by a bus and an obese person dying of heart attack?

I don't quite understand the first part of the sentence - could you please explain?

Apart from that, I find your argumentation very logical and convincing.

 

What I meant there was; if you die young and leave young children or teenagers behind, have you caused damage to them that could be considered immoral?

 

When it comes to mental disorders and chronic illness I am with you and the I would love to see a bit more attention directed towards a healthy lifestyle in the freedomain community, I can't stand to see intelligent and rational people treating their bodies badly, Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens come immediately to mind.

 

You're not by any chance Vegan are you?

As far as the titular question is concerned, philosophy is the all-discipline. Any domain you look at, where you define your terms and/or establish how to come to make valid truth claims is philosophy.

 

As far as UPB is concerned, only the things in which violence is justified in order to prevent classify as immoral. Neglecting a healthy diet is not an act that violence is justified in order to prevent. That's not to say that it's neutral or good, just not immoral, specifically. (AFAIK).

 

 

Yes of course you're right, I guess I meant is it something that a philosophy show should spend some time discussing.

 

With UPB I am trying to think of a way that it could violate the NAP but it really isn't going to happen, so no slapping donuts out of people's hands, for now.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

In the specific case of dependent children I think there can be a moral dimension. Knowingly abusing your own health, if carried to extremes, could involve unnecessary distress to your children. I think it is also fair to say that parents who choose extremely unhealthy lifestyles for themselves invariably inflict the same regime on dependants who, by definition, are bound into the relationship.

[Frederik]

As far as UPB is concerned, only the things in which violence is justified in order to prevent classify as immoral. Neglecting a healthy diet is not an act that violence is justified in order to prevent. That's not to say that it's neutral or good, just not immoral, specifically. (AFAIK).

 

In having a child, and where knowledge is present or readily available, consistent neglect is a violation of an implicit contract.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure about the criteria for immoral actions.

 

I am pretty sure it is common practice for officials to take away children by force if the parents let their children suffer from severe neglect.

 

Let's say a young child of 10 years is obese. This child will probably suffer health impairments for all his life, in addition to the severe mental agony from being constantly bullied in school, having low self-esteem, hating his own body... Would you say that force is justified in this case? If not, how sick would a child have to be so that you would say force is justified?

 

Thanks!

[dsayers]

Are you arguing there is no difference between a healthy person being hit by a bus and an obese person dying of heart attack?

Show me where.

 

Health is a continuum.

[Kevin Beal]

Let's say a young child of 10 years is obese. This child will probably suffer health impairments for all his life, in addition to the severe mental agony from being constantly bullied in school, having low self-esteem, hating his own body... Would you say that force is justified in this case? If not, how sick would a child have to be so that you would say force is justified?

Good question. I don't know the answer to that, or how to determine that off the top of my head. Maybe it is justified...

 

I know that I would feel tempted to punch a parent in the face who encouraged their child to become obese.

[shirgall]

Mark Rippetoe, at 60, deadlifting 500 pounds. Is he healthy or unhealthy?

 

[rosencrantz]

The information is readily accessible and there is no excuse for not knowing how to eat well, contrary to popular opinion eating healthy can be very cheap.

 

Nutrition is confusing but there are facts and the right way to eat is universal therefore once that lifestyle is well studied and understood any decision not to adhere to this diet is a semi-conscious choice to self-harm.

 

How do you eat well? If the past is any indication, any new information that is seen as the truth is subject to change in the future. 

[Jakethehuman]

"Mark Rippetoe, at 60, deadlifting 500 pounds. Is he healthy or unhealthy?"

 

Clearly unhealthy...

How do you eat well? If the past is any indication, any new information that is seen as the truth is subject to change in the future.

So your argument is that you think one day scientists will discover broccoli is bad for you?

 

Come on I'm talking more fruit and vege, more fibre, Americans on average eat 12g when they need at least 25!

 

Maybe the media throws around contradictory statements about nutrition, but the studies are there to be read, and just a bit of reason will help here. Look to evolution, what did our primate ancestors eat and what do they still mainly eat?

Show me where.

 

Health is a continuum.

I'm not sure that I can show you I think you are incapable of understanding.

 

One is a horrible and tragic ACCIDENT

The other is a predictable and well documented CHOICE

[Frederik]

What I meant there was; if you die young and leave young children or teenagers behind, have you caused damage to them that could be considered immoral?

 

When it comes to mental disorders and chronic illness I am with you and the I would love to see a bit more attention directed towards a healthy lifestyle in the freedomain community, I can't stand to see intelligent and rational people treating their bodies badly, Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens come immediately to mind.

 

You're not by any chance Vegan are you?

 

Whether a parent dying early because of lifestyle choices can be considered immoral, I think is quite a complicated case.

I would guess that there is the dilemma of 1. A parent violating the implicit contract of taking care of a child by ending her life versus 2. The parent owning her body and being free to kill herself.

Maybe one could argue that when an adult chooses to have a child, she agrees to let go of certain freedoms like the latter?

What do you think about it?

 

Oh boy, I am so with you that the philosophical community does not put enough attention towards a healthy lifestyle! For example, it often upsets me the oversimplicity and often ill-logic Stef talks about health issues, like "sugar is bad", "I need meat for the protein because I work out", "My cancer was clearly not lifestyle-related because I have been working out for 30 years". All of which, I would argue, is not logical and not supported by the science that we have.

 

I see a fantastically great conflict of interest between many philosophers and their own unhealthy lifestyle. So many people think they are healthy, but objectively, overweight and not in the perfect health condition that they could be in. Thinking about this often often makes me feel sad and angry

 

Oh yes, I am very dedicated to healthy living and eat exclusively plant-based. I can assume you are a vegan, too, then?

 

Good question. I don't know the answer to that, or how to determine that off the top of my head. Maybe it is justified...

 

Ye, that's what I thought. Maybe it's not that simple after all. I appreciate your honesty!

[Kevin Beal]

How do you eat well? If the past is any indication, any new information that is seen as the truth is subject to change in the future. 

Is this principle specific to nutrition or the truth in general? If it's the truth in general, then that includes this statement, and thus it is practically self defeating. It doesn't explain anything to say that the truth is subject to change until it is not.

 

Also, while nutrition as a science contradicts itself as bad as a politician, there are clear universals. People who show signs of nutrient deficiencies are less healthy in that respect than those who show neither signs of deficiency or overdose.

 

Generally speaking, it is better to get omega 3 oils, vitamin D, vitamin C, protein, foods that reduce inflammation, fruits and vegetables, a diverse diet, than not. Generally speaking, it's best to stay away from lactose (as an adult), gluten (50% of white population), high fructose corn syrup, moldy foods, brown rice, etc.

[dsayers]

I'm not sure that I can show you I think you are incapable of understanding.

You asked if I had said something I had not said and I asked you to show me where I had said it. Obfuscation is not the mark of a reasoned, accurate argument.

[Jakethehuman]

Healthy people can die. Or get hit by a bus. Also, health is a general state and not the product of any single decision. And since it's internal, there is no moral component.

 

This is what I was referring to, after I made a point about people making bad decisions about their health you respond with, "healthy people can die too", or at least that is how I interpreted the paragraph.

Maybe one could argue that when an adult chooses to have a child, she agrees to let go of certain freedoms like the latter?

What do you think about it?

 

Yes if it is true that when someone becomes a parent they have chosen to stop being responsible for only feeding themselves but also for sustaining the life of another, and if they don't fulfil that role adequately enough for the child to survive they have committed murder, and they can be held accountable just the same as if they did the act physically. Therefore if the diet inflicted on the child is so inadequate as to cause chronic disease this should be considered the same as if the child is left in a wheelchair as a result of repeated beatings. (I hope my "Therefore" fits before my statement, it makes sense to me but I may have a bit of a bias here)

Oh boy, I am so with you that the philosophical community does not put enough attention towards a healthy lifestyle! For example, it often upsets me the oversimplicity and often ill-logic Stef talks about health issues, like "sugar is bad", "I need meat for the protein because I work out", "My cancer was clearly not lifestyle-related because I have been working out for 30 years". All of which, I would argue, is not logical and not supported by the science that we have.

 

I see a fantastically great conflict of interest between many philosophers and their own unhealthy lifestyle. So many people think they are healthy, but objectively, overweight and not in the perfect health condition that they could be in. Thinking about this often often makes me feel sad and angry

 

Oh no! I haven't heard his say that about his cancer but it does not surprise me, I've heard other times when someone tried to give him exercise tips and he ridiculed them and the whole idea of using correct form in a exercise, not sure where that comes from but it is sad. I had a call a couple months back and it never got uploaded, I asked if he thought feeding kids poorly to the point of obesity was abuse, and he agreed right off the bat, so my next question was would veganism be more prevalent in a free society, to which he also agreed and went on a short rant about government subsidies, messing with the food pyramid etc etc, so then I asked if he was a vegan, he didn't want to answer, saying only that he ate well. In the planning emails Mike also wanted to push away from the specific nutrition questions I had because he thought people lose interest with that stuff, as they may well do, but even more reason for the truth to be talked about on the show! Not sure what the push back was but I think a "truth about Health" video is well in order!

Oh yes, I am very dedicated to healthy living and eat exclusively plant-based. I can assume you are a vegan, too, then?

 

That's so good to hear, there are a lot of crazy vegans and a lot of philosophical meat eaters  good to meet another person who has it together. I've been doing raw till 4 for about a month now, which can be a struggle to get calories because of my work, but damn it feels great and how can you not want to eat fruit salad all day! Do you know http://nutritionfacts.org/ ?

[Kevin Beal]

Obfuscation is not the mark of a reasoned, accurate argument.

Well, by definition, that would be the case. If it's been obfuscated, then that is to imply illogic. It's redundant and effectively tautological. It is a meaningless thing to say. It's like saying that irrationality is irrational.

 

Also, this is nitpicking on my part, but an argument isn't "accurate". Accuracy describes elements of arguments like analogies, descriptions, etc. Arguments are valid or invalid.

 

The fact that healthy people can die and get hit by buses, and that health is a continuum is perfectly consistent with the guy's argument. The fact that it is consistent is what he means when he says that you don't seem to understand.

 

Your responses come across as lazy, not well thought out. It makes me wonder why you participated in the thread at all. Are you overweight? Do you know overweight children? Are you unhealthy?

 

Let's bring this back to the actual topic

[Jakethehuman]

Healthy people can die. Or get hit by a bus. Also, health is a general state and not the product of any single decision. And since it's internal, there is no moral component.

 

In my post I talked about people making poor decisions that lead to chronic disease and death, and you responded by saying healthy people can die too.

Maybe one could argue that when an adult chooses to have a child, she agrees to let go of certain freedoms like the latter?

What do you think about it?

 

I just wrote this and the comment disappeared but ill try again.

Yes if someone makes the choice to become a parent they are no longer responsible for sustaining only their own life through food, but their childs as well, and any neglect in this role that leads to the death of the child is considered murder, and would be dealt with the same as if they had performed the act physically. Therefore if feeding a child bad food leads to chronic illness later in life this can be considered the same as if a parents repeated physical beatings lead to life in a wheel chair.

 

I hope the logic here is sound it works for me but I've got a big bias.

Oh yes, I am very dedicated to healthy living and eat exclusively plant-based. I can assume you are a vegan, too, then?

 

That is great to hear, there are lots of crazy vegans and many philosophical meat eaters, glad to meet someone who has it together! I have been doing raw till 4 for a month, and while it is hard to get the right amount of calories due to work who wouldn't love fruit salad all day  do you know http://nutritionfacts.org/ ?

[Frederik]

Yes if it is true that when someone becomes a parent they have chosen to stop being responsible for only feeding themselves but also for sustaining the life of another, and if they don't fulfil that role adequately enough for the child to survive they have committed murder, and they can be held accountable just the same as if they did the act physically. Therefore if the diet inflicted on the child is so inadequate as to cause chronic disease this should be considered the same as if the child is left in a wheelchair as a result of repeated beatings. (I hope my "Therefore" fits before my statement, it makes sense to me but I may have a bit of a bias here)

 

 

Oh no! I haven't heard his say that about his cancer but it does not surprise me, I've heard other times when someone tried to give him exercise tips and he ridiculed them and the whole idea of using correct form in a exercise, not sure where that comes from but it is sad. I had a call a couple months back and it never got uploaded, I asked if he thought feeding kids poorly to the point of obesity was abuse, and he agreed right off the bat, so my next question was would veganism be more prevalent in a free society, to which he also agreed and went on a short rant about government subsidies, messing with the food pyramid etc etc, so then I asked if he was a vegan, he didn't want to answer, saying only that he ate well. In the planning emails Mike also wanted to push away from the specific nutrition questions I had because he thought people lose interest with that stuff, as they may well do, but even more reason for the truth to be talked about on the show! Not sure what the push back was but I think a "truth about Health" video is well in order!

 

That's so good to hear, there are a lot of crazy vegans and a lot of philosophical meat eaters  good to meet another person who has it together. I've been doing raw till 4 for about a month now, which can be a struggle to get calories because of my work, but damn it feels great and how can you not want to eat fruit salad all day! Do you know http://nutritionfacts.org/ ?

 

Yes, I would say your reasoning is, at least at first glance, consistent. I guess that a major problem in our society today is that, especially in the states, people are unhealthily accustomed to fat people, and so they don't recognize how catastrophically unhealthy a lot of people are.

However, I do think the beating analogy is not particularly accurate, because beatings are a direct cause and effect of the parents' actions, but with diet it is clear that the child is also highly influenced by her peers, teachers, the television program, etc. The responsibility is not as one-sided, so I have a hard time accepting the conclusions you came up with.

 

The last quote from Stefan about his cancer I came across just recently, actually.

Reading your second paragraph made me feel very scared and anxious. I experienced a real sinking sensation!

This is, I believe, because I fully believe that what you wrote is true and also that your impressions from the situation and thoughts on what is going on are valid. I approached Mike some time ago about the topic of nutition, and think I made a pretty good case concerning a philosophical approach to nutrition. He answered with a snappy two-liner about how nutrition is generally science-based, and asked me to send him research instead - exactly which I wanted not to do, in the same way that I don't want to start of a debate with a statist by sending him papers about the inefficiency of statism because that stuff just won't work. After that, I slipped into passive aggression, so that conversation didn't continue as such.

 

I absolutely support you in the endeavours you have undertaken, and I applaud you for doing it. I would love to get the evidence from you - have you recorded the call? Can you forward me the mail exchange with Mike? I would also be happy to forward you what I have.

 

Sounds great! I started out with RawTill4, too, and since have been learning more and more to just eat what I want, and interestingly don't eat raw that much at all anymore. I wouldn't mind a fruit salad, definitely

Nutritionfacts was one of the resources I sent to Mike in the past..

 

Your responses come across as lazy, not well thought out. It makes me wonder why you participated in the thread at all. Are you overweight? Do you know overweight children? Are you unhealthy?

 

Let's bring this back to the actual topic

 

I second your impression. I would argue that all of dsayers' posts in this thread contain loads of passive aggression, and I would also like to know why this is the case in this thread exactly.

[Jakethehuman]

Yes, I would say your reasoning is, at least at first glance, consistent. I guess that a major problem in our society today is that, especially in the states, people are unhealthily accustomed to fat people, and so they don't recognize how catastrophically unhealthy a lot of people are.

However, I do think the beating analogy is not particularly accurate, because beatings are a direct cause and effect of the parents' actions, but with diet it is clear that the child is also highly influenced by her peers, teachers, the television program, etc. The responsibility is not as one-sided, so I have a hard time accepting the conclusions you came up with.

 

It is my opinion that the external influences on a child's behaviour are all secondary to a healthy (mentally and physically) parents. What I mean is, if a parent uses UPB, NAP, voluntary family and is also a good example with diet and exercise, a child is virtually impervious to any bs coming from "secondary" influences. If it is a parents responsibility to keep a child safe, and a parent has access to the info, and then chooses to feed a poor diet and ignore minimum exercise requirements, they are showing their child that it doesn't really matter what you eat or how active you are, therefore the child will be more likely to pick up bad habits from others around him, directly because the parent has failed in their role as educator and protector. I'm making this up as I go

[Frederik]

Well, I certainly can't refute that.

 

For some reason I am not convinced in general, but that doesn't mean that you are wrong of course. I feel confused about the discussion and specifically the argument, at the same time I have little motivation to really try to understand it.

 

I would certainly be interested in hearing you debate with Stef.

[Jakethehuman]

Well, I certainly can't refute that.

 

For some reason I am not convinced in general, but that doesn't mean that you are wrong of course. I feel confused about the discussion and specifically the argument, at the same time I have little motivation to really try to understand it.

 

I would certainly be interested in hearing you debate with Stef.

Why the lack of motivation?

[Frederik]

I think the main reason is that this discussion has no direct influence on my life whatsoever. I really am passionate about it in a way, but only in that I find it saddening how the philosophy of health and nutrition seems to get rejected by Stefan and Mike. I might get more interested in it again at a later point, but currently, that is not my focus.

 

Thank you for your concern!

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I also hate parents who fill children with their guilty conscience by feeding them until they are obese. It is a sickening display of creating something ugly to criticize, so you don't have to criticize yourself. And it is not just a "something." It is the person you claim to love and have the best intention towards, and yet you use them as a vacancy to pour your insecurities into. I can't fathom having respect for an adult who would do this, and I sympathize deeply for the child who is a victim of this but cannot even have the dignity to know he is a victim. Instead he is blamed and ridiculed for the putrid self hatred his parents are filling him with. I hate this with all my might and wish the children were not surrounded by a society of cowards who won't even tell them the truth; who cannot even speak up for them. I hate cowardice with a passion. It is pathetic to act like a coward towards a child. A child is immeasurably more weak than any adult, physically mentally and emotionally, and yet adults are too precious to endure some hurt or displeasure or risk for the benefit of the child. I hope this civilization of cowards is looked back on like pathetic mice who flee moral courage and pursue their inconsequential pop culture brain rot "reality" television as if they are the most obnoxious people in the world.

 

I am talking about people who do this with no regret and no care about the immorality they have done. I am brought to tears for the children who have to endure the shame and humiliation of being raised by people who chose to be this way with all the available knowledge which they chose to ignore, because they are satisfied to treat their children as slaves of their vanity.

[Jakethehuman]

I think the main reason is that this discussion has no direct influence on my life whatsoever. I really am passionate about it in a way, but only in that I find it saddening how the philosophy of health and nutrition seems to get rejected by Stefan and Mike. I might get more interested in it again at a later point, but currently, that is not my focus.

 

Thank you for your concern!

Fair enough there is a lot to be concerned about in the world, I guess I'm so interested in this right now because it's new and it's kinda my idea to work with and understand, rather than just listening to how something is, if you know what I mean?

I hope this civilization of cowards is looked back on like pathetic mice who flee moral courage and pursue their inconsequential pop culture brain rot "reality" television as if they are the most obnoxious people in the world.

Absolutely! There is a lot to be ashamed of and it will be in text books one day for how not to do society

[Frederik]

Fair enough there is a lot to be concerned about in the world, I guess I'm so interested in this right now because it's new and it's kinda my idea to work with and understand, rather than just listening to how something is, if you know what I mean?

 

Well, I was not saying that I am instead concerned about some other thing in the world that neither has direct influence on me, nor can it be changed through my actions, but surely it's a great thing to be concerned about something.

 

Great post, Matthew! I find your passionate aversion against those kinds of parents is entirely justified. You make a lot of sense to me and I greatly appreciate your psychological insights on the matter!

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"The information is readily accessible and there is no excuse for not knowing how to eat well, contrary to popular opinion eating healthy can be very cheap."

 

Would you mind pointing me towards this information? I just ate a Subway foot long and I noticed I felt tired after I ate it. I don't know if it was all the carbs in the bread, but I don't really want to have this experience again now that I'm paying attention more to my nutrition. 

[Frederik]

I just ate a Subway foot long and I noticed I felt tired after I ate it. I don't know if it was all the carbs in the bread, but I don't really want to have this experience again now that I'm paying attention more to my nutrition.

That is the fat from the cheese and dressing (and meat?) entering the blood stream, leading to a thickening of the blood and lowering its ability to transport oxygen.

 

Here is what that looks like, referring to the one and only mad genius a.k.a. Harley 'Durianrider' Johnstone ^.^ (a big inspiration of mine in the past)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlVBOMuxXes

 

I forgot to mention another important aspect which very likely played a role, which is that the sandwich led to dehydration because not only is it very dry itself (the bread) but it is also very high in salt. Salt binds water, which is the same reason for why sea water is dehydrating.

[shirgall]

"The information is readily accessible and there is no excuse for not knowing how to eat well, contrary to popular opinion eating healthy can be very cheap."

 

Would you mind pointing me towards this information? I just ate a Subway foot long and I noticed I felt tired after I ate it. I don't know if it was all the carbs in the bread, but I don't really want to have this experience again now that I'm paying attention more to my nutrition. 

 

Not only do certain components of foods lead to sugar spikes and downs, but being tired leads to snacking. Vicious cycle.

[Nathan Metric]

I agree that nutrition is virtuous, but we need to make a distinction things that are merely virtuous with things that should be violently enforced.

Being courageous is a virtue, but it shouldn't be violently enforced.

Verbal abuse is a vice, but it shouldn't be violently opposed.

 

You attack vices with virtues and you attack aggression with retaliation (unless it's something very powerful like the government which you cannot reasonably retaliate against)

[Jakethehuman]

Would you mind pointing me towards this information? I just ate a Subway foot long and I noticed I felt tired after I ate it. I don't know if it was all the carbs in the bread, but I don't really want to have this experience again now that I'm paying attention more to my nutrition.

I'm glad you ask! A great place to start is nutritionfacts.org, a favourite Youtuber of mine is Vegan Gains great content and sources, The China Study is worth a read, my understanding of the "situation" comes from a look at evolutionary biology, homosapiens have spent the majority of our evolution eating a plant based diet, the Paleo fad refers to a relatively tiny fragment of our evolution, 2 million years, compared to the tens of millions spent chewing grass, makes sense our bodies prefer not to eat dead animals in the long term.

 

Now to your foot long, carbs are not the enemy! Although I try to avoid processed carbs I eat 20+ servings of fruit a day. It would be the meat cheese and oily sauce they used, I never get that tired feeling after going vegan even though I stuff my self daily, it is a sign that your body is working really hard to digest your meal. A steak sits in the guts for 3 days and recently red and processed meat has been linked to bowel cancer.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Would it matter what race I am when considering what my nutritional needs are? I don't think I'm being overly skeptical, I was just curious what you might know about that.

 

Thank you very much that is exactly the kind of introduction I was looking for.

[Jakethehuman]

I agree that nutrition is virtuous, but we need to make a distinction things that are merely virtuous with things that should be violently enforced.

Being courageous is a virtue, but it shouldn't be violently enforced.

Verbal abuse is a vice, but it shouldn't be violently opposed.

 

You attack vices with virtues and you attack aggression with retaliation (unless it's something very powerful like the government which you cannot reasonably retaliate against)

I understand your point but if a parent is feeding a child poorly, to the point of early onset diabetes that is physical abuse as you can draw a direct connection between the food being provided and the disease contracted.

 

It is virtuous to eat heaps of fruit and veggies, cook at home most of the time and enjoy exercise with your kids. It is immoral to let a kid become obese because of your bad decisions.

 

I wonder if this example works: so you have a young boy, obese and has just developed diabetes, the damage has been done now and no matter how in shape he gets he will have this glucose guilotine hanging over his head for the rest of his life, he may die young and his quality of life will be drastically reduced because the parents couldn't figure out how to feed him or themselves right. His relationship with his parents can never be truly healthy and loving at this point. Now let's say at the first sign of serious weight gain people confront the parents and tell them things need to change offer them books and links all the relevant info and give them all the help they ask for on fixing their lifestyles, after this if the trend continues the child is forcibly removed from the "care" of his parents, until such time as they prove themselves able to reasonable take care of a child's health. This will undoubtedly be traumatic for a young child, but I wonder what is worse? Having a single traumatic experience followed by care and love and good food! Or an entire childhood of shit food ending up with diabetes air dying from a heart attack at 35, I'm sure the child would pick the first option when he reaches adulthood.

 

I have no idea how this would work in a free society but I know I would not want to like in a place where I could see parents abusing their children daily with food and have to put up with that because it's not serious enough to use force. I imagine there would be some sort of group who would take away children who are in physically abusive households and take them somewhere loving, I suppose they could do the same on the case of obesity.

[AccuTron]

Mark Rippetoe, at 60, deadlifting 500 pounds. Is he healthy or unhealthy?

 

He's nuts.

[Jakethehuman]

Would it matter what race I am when considering what my nutritional needs are? I don't think I'm being overly skeptical, I was just curious what you might know about that.

 

Thank you very much that is exactly the kind of introduction I was looking for.

I cannot answer your question definitively as I haven't looked into it, I just did a quick search and there was nothing obvious so I doubt it has even been studied. While there may be slight differences, similar to how women should consume more iron because of menstruation, that is not a big deal because that only equals eating a bit of extra spinach and beans. Everything the body needs can be found in different plants, the only exception being b12, which comes from bacteria in the dirt, and on the rotting flesh of dead animals. Vegan food is not as calorically dense as meat, eggs and dairy, so we have to eat a higher volume in general to meet our energy needs, in the process we get more then enough nutrients and protein from our food.

 

Protein requirements for sedentary adults is about 0.8g per kg of body weight, up to an optimal 1.7g per kg found in a study on atheletes, any more than this just ended up being peed out basically. I couldn't find the study that said that but while looking now I came across this http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/1/161.short

It says any more protein ingested that required leads to irreversible oxidation, which is very bad.

 

In short again any racial differences will be minuscule due to the relatively short amount of time since we started evolving separately, fundamentally the body needs what it needs and while some things may be slightly more important to some races it is not something to worry about if you are eating a whole foods plant based diet, in my opinion!