Junk food diet linked to lower IQ

[MynameisnotDeja]

Here in the UK they get cash and more often than not you see them spending it on fags, booze and designer clothing rather than healthy eating.

Yep, exactly so it's a choice. I do not agree at all that people should receive money from the government to do whatever they want with. It's pathetic, really.

I do agree there could be more education but at the same time people do know they are supposed to eat fruits and vegetables. It's just like knowing that smoking is bad for you. They know but they don't care.

 

[Mehm]

Junk food is actually subsidized by the American government. Farmers get something like an additional $2.50 for every bushel of corn they sell. This keeps the price of corn cheaper for companies to by. The result is sugar and factory farmed meat/dairy is less expensive than it should be in a free-market. *1

*1. Insert conspiracy theory about dumbing down the population here.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

Junk food is actually subsidized by the American government. Farmers get something like an additional $2.50 for every bushel of corn they sell. This keeps the price of corn cheaper for companies to by. The result is sugar and factory farmed meat/dairy is less expensive than it should be in a free-market. *1

I think this is oversimplified reasoning. Corn is not junk food; some junk food items may contain processed corn or HFCS. Corn by itself is actually a very decent food, high in fibers, B vitamins and relatively high in protein. I tend to agree with your statement that the government is definitely to blame, but this kind of reasoning is heading towards excessive populism so it's a non-argument (in my opinion).

What strikes me is the availability of good quality whole foods in the UK and the US. Of course, I don't live there so I have to base my information on what I hear and read. But I read an article once (not scientific), that it took someone over 90 minutes to find whole-grain bread in NYC. It's just an example, but if you think about how pathetic that is compared to Dutch standards (the ratio of whole vs processed bread is 70/30 or something), you can easily draw conclusions about the nature of the problem: There is just not enough supply c.q. availability of healthy food. On the other hand, if the public would be educated on this matter, their increased demand would automatically lead to a better supply/availability of healthy, unprocessed foods.

Some other food-for-though:
- Tax unhealthy food AND the companies that produce unhealthy foods
- Higher health insurance rates for people that keep eating fucked up foods
- Feeding overweight/obese children junk food should be considered child abuse
- Ban on advertising for unhealthy food

Can't help myself when I see another 300 pound motherfucker entering the Mc Donalds across from where I live...I just feel such a strong desire to start yelling.

 

[TakeItAll]

Yeah, women drinking during pregnancy. Mothers and fathers smoking while pregnant or with little kids around. Really pisses me off; how on earth can any decent parent think that a fucking cigarette is more important than the health of their own children!? What an absolute retards there are among evolution's finest produce so far...

How can anyone when the epigenetic studies have shown that it will damage the health of your offspring and their offspring.

A bit more on topic: there is a host of studies now looking at various endpoints that point at the health of your gastrointestinal system with the health of your brain. According to a gastro researcher I know apparently it's one of the easiest things to get research funding for at the moment. And on a different level even kids get taught you are what you eat at school (at least when I grew up) so it's not surprising it has an effect on your intellect level as part of that.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

TakeItAll: Perhaps you could do some research into intermittent fasting and the effects on the brain. About half a year ago I was fairly into that subject matter, together with a friend with which I hit the gym quite often. Seems to have a remarkable effect on BDNF and other neuronal growth factors.

Too bad I am just enjoying eating too much to go about fasting 18 hours each day.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

But I read an article once (not scientific), that it took someone over 90 minutes to find whole-grain bread in NYC. It's just an example, but if you think about how pathetic that is compared to Dutch standards (the ratio of whole vs processed bread is 70/30 or something), you can easily draw conclusions about the nature of the problem: There is just not enough supply c.q. availability of healthy food. On the other hand, if the public would be educated on this matter, their increased demand would automatically lead to a better supply/availability of healthy, unprocessed foods.

Yeah, this is so true. Where I used to live, there was no organic produce available for years. The nearest place to get organic produce was a whole foods about an hour drive away. There was another small family owned health food store about a half hours drive away that had a FEW organic items but that was it. Literally not one of the probably 10 stores in my town sold anything organic.

I've been back there to visit a few times in the past couple years and I was happy to see it improved somewhat.. ONE store now has a few organic items... a few. I still had to eat mostly conventional when I was there which was troubling, but at least it's improving somewhat.

And on a different level even kids get taught you are what you eat at school (at least when I grew up) so it's not surprising it has an effect on your intellect level as part of that.

And yet still, even in this day and age with all we know, most kids school lunch program food is complete shit...

 

[3rd_I_blind]

And yet still, even in this day and age with all we know, most kids school lunch program food is complete shit...

Definitive proof that capitalism is an absolute fail... More than 100,000 scientific publications on the relation between health and food, but still 90% of the retards get fucked over by the fast food corporations, for nothing but easy dollars. And then they wanna put me in jail for using and sharing certain chemicals at 99.8% purity, for a decent price, with people that are well-educated on the risks and effects associated with said chemicals. Who are the real criminals here, I ask myself...

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^the high school that I went to had a starbucks and krispy kreme inside it!




...but no, you're definitely a criminal either way :D

 

[3rd_I_blind]

you're definitely a criminal either way :D

In today's society and political climate, intelligence is indeed treated as a crime.

Although the above statement was meant as a joke, when you start thinking about it...there's definitely a certain truth to it.

 

[Mehm]

I think this is oversimplified reasoning. Corn is not junk food; some junk food items may contain processed corn or HFCS. Corn by itself is actually a very decent food, high in fibers, B vitamins and relatively high in protein. I tend to agree with your statement that the government is definitely to blame, but this kind of reasoning is heading towards excessive populism so it's a non-argument (in my opinion).

The vast majority of corn produced in the USA is for feed and processing. I agree that sweet corn is a wholesome food. However it represents less than %1 of the crop (iirc).

How is my statement "heading towards excessive populism?"

Here is a link to a description of corn in America.

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/we-are-what-we-eat

If you are what you eat, and especially if you eat industrial food, as 99 percent of Americans do, what you are is "corn."

During the last year I've been following a bushel of corn through the industrial food system. What I keep finding in case after case, if you follow the food back to the farm — if you follow the nutrients, if you follow the carbon — you end up in a corn field in Iowa, over and over and over again.

Take a typical fast food meal. Corn is the sweetener in the soda. It's in the corn-fed beef Big Mac patty, and in the high-fructose syrup in the bun, and in the secret sauce. Slim Jims are full of corn syrup, dextrose, cornstarch, and a great many additives. The “four different fuels” in a Lunchables meal, are all essentially corn-based. The chicken nugget—including feed for the chicken, fillers, binders, coating, and dipping sauce—is all corn. The french fries are made from potatoes, but odds are they're fried in corn oil, the source of 50 percent of their calories. Even the salads at McDonald's are full of high-fructose corn syrup and thickeners made from corn.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Mehm have you seen that doc "king corn" where the guys get their hair and stuff tested and they find out their bodies are basically made completely of corn.

I'm proud to be 100% corn free. :D

 

[3rd_I_blind]

How is my statement "heading towards excessive populism?"

Because you say that junk food is subsidized, while it is the corn that's subsidized. That products at your local Mc Donalds can be traced back to a cornfield does not mean those products are subsidized by the government. Furthermore - and you agree on this - corn is a pretty decent foodstuff on its own. So if a bull is fed corn, this is in a whole different league than the processing of corn syrup to produce HFCS. Most meat that comes off a bull is rather healthy, provided it is prepared in the right way. But you only take the parts of the story that help your (oversimplified, in my opinion) view that it's all junk food and thus the government is subsidizing junk food. Let's say 20 percent of a bull ends up as processed meat i.e. in your hamburger. That means 80 per cent ends up as non-junk food. You see how it is oversimplified to reason 'bulls are fed corn, hamburgers are made from beef, so corn fed to bulls should be seen as junk food'?

Your reasoning can more or less be compared with 'all foodstuff that causes cancer contains water; the government provides clean drinking water to produce the majority of these products - ergo: the government subsidizes carcinogenic foodstuff'.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that processed corn products, and especially HFCS, are the closest thing you can get to food-induced suicide. But I object against discussing such problems with twisted arguments and populistic statements. It's shitty if 'the other side' uses biased information to support their views, but it's even worse if you have to resort to such tactics yourself.

PS Perhaps I must stress the fact that 'populistic' might have a slightly broader meaning in Dutch, sorry if that causes confusion!?

 

[Mehm]

Because you say that junk food is subsidized, while it is the corn that's subsidized. That products at your local Mc Donalds can be traced back to a cornfield does not mean those products are subsidized by the government.

Companies that buy corn for feed or processing do so at about half the cost it takes to grow the corn (due to subsidies). This savings is passed down the line to the consumer, who then pays less for the corn based product. So subsidizing corn has the end effect of making junk food cheaper.

So if a bull is fed corn, this is in a whole different league than the processing of corn syrup to produce HFCS. Most meat that comes off a bull is rather healthy, provided it is prepared in the right way.

Feeding a bull corn is not healthy and produces unhealthy meat. The natural diet of bovine is grass. Factory farming in general is very unhealthy to all those involved. Corn subsidies directly contribute to the prevalence of factory farming.

Let's say 20 percent of a bull ends up as processed meat i.e. in your hamburger. That means 80 per cent ends up as non-junk food.

Name one food product made from industrialized corn that isn't complete junk. BTW tortillas and other whole corn products are made from sweet corn.

You should drop the condescending attitude as you apparently know very little about the subject. HFCS is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Mehm]

Mehm have you seen that doc "king corn" where the guys get their hair and stuff tested and they find out their bodies are basically made completely of corn.

I'm proud to be 100% corn free.

Yeah, I've seen it. Good watch

 

[3rd_I_blind]

So subsidizing corn has the end effect of making junk food cheaper.

Correct, but this is not the equivalent of the government subsidizing junk food.

Name one food product made from industrialized corn that isn't complete junk.

Why should I? You are steering this part of the discussion entirely off it's track man. I admit you probably know a lot more about how shitty processed/industrialized corn is, as I am from a country where we don't have to give a fuck about it 'cause there's enough decent food available. But the fact that my knowledge on processed corn is not equal to yours, does not make my original argument invalid. Perhaps you assume I am not agreeing with the direction of your point, while I am agreeing with that. I just don't like it if a discussion on a decent level gets polluted with semi-arguments that appear valid, but are based on a biased view or simplified reasoning.

I'll give one more example: Subsidized corn makes feeding cows cheaper, which means the milk produced by said cows is also cheaper. Although milk from grass-fed cows is probably healthier (since it would contain healthier fatty acids and somewhat more protein), a lot of dairy products made from milk from corn-fed cows are still healthy products. I am not advocating to continue feeding cows and bulls with corn, but just trying to add some nuance to the story.

 

[Mehm]

Correct, but this is not the equivalent of the government subsidizing junk food.

I guess that is a matter of semantics. People are allowed to use food stamps to buy said food as well. IMO this is another subsidy.

Name one food product made from industrialized corn that isn't complete junk.

Why should I?

Because you said that, "80 per cent ends up as non-junk food." This is completely wrong.

You are steering this part of the discussion entirely off it's track man.

How so? My original point was that junk food costs less than whole food because of government corn (and also wheat, soy, and some others) subsidies.

But the fact that my knowledge on processed corn is not equal to yours, does not make my original argument invalid. Perhaps you assume I am not agreeing with the direction of your point, while I am agreeing with that. I just don't like it if a discussion on a decent level gets polluted with semi-arguments that appear valid, but are based on a biased view or simplified reasoning.

What is your original argument and how am I using, "semi-arguments that appear valid?" I'm stating facts about subsidies and the industrial corn/food industry.

a lot of dairy products made from milk from corn-fed cows are still healthy products.

I know that the Dutch are very defensive about their mayo, but I respectfully disagree with this statement as it pertains to the USA. Industrial milk farms produce an atrocious product from horribly mistreated animals.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

Because you said that, "80 per cent ends up as non-junk food." This is completely wrong.

Please note that the 80 per cent statement was directed towards beef. I guestimated about 20 per cent will be processed to hamburger etc, while the remaining 80 per cent will be available as meat - of which a considerable amount is relatively healthy when prepared in a decent way. Or is - for instance - a sirloin steak also considerd junk food nowadays? (serious question, no mockery!)

My original point was that junk food costs less than whole food because of government corn (and also wheat, soy, and some others) subsidies.

I understand, but you made the point in a post of two sentences, in which you said the government is actually subsidizing junk food. I know I am being hardheaded here, but in my first response to your I was just pointing out that a direct subsidy is not the same as a subsidy that has consequences further down the pipe.

Same goes for the food stamps. While junk food bought with a food stamp is essentially paid for by the government, the government is not directly subsidizing junk food with the food stamp program, because you are not required or encouraged (by the government, at least) to buy junk food; you can use the same stamps to buy organic food.

I respect that the information in your last few posts was all factual, and the image that you are making by these posts is largely supported by me. But my initial response to you was because I do not consider your first post to be factual. (See beginning of this post) The fact that animals are treated poorly and the intrinsic quality of their produce suffers as a result is beyond any doubt. But there is a difference between defending treating animals this way and recognizing that there are still healthy products to be had from such animals.

EDIT: Are you - by any chance - familiar with Dr. Lustig and his opinion of HFCS? It's not my intention to start another discussion about his view or anything, just to illustrate what I mean. Although he makes some valid points in his lecture, he makes the mistake of leaving out certain information to emphasize his point. But by doing so, he attracted a fierce bashing from fellow scientists, leading to the demise of his credibility...although the basic message of his lecture is very real. Some info HERE. Also note how some of the scientist stress the fact they agree with the message, but object to the way of 'conveniently' leaving out bits of information, so the arguments get more leverage.

 

[Mehm]

Please note that the 80 per cent statement was directed towards beef. I guestimated about 20 per cent will be processed to hamburger etc, while the remaining 80 per cent will be available as meat - of which a considerable amount is relatively healthy when prepared in a decent way. Or is - for instance - a sirloin steak also considerd junk food nowadays? (serious question, no mockery!)

I personally don't think that any of the animal products coming from industrial farming are healthy to eat. An occasional sirloin or burger from a grass ranged animal can definitely be part of a healthy diet imo.

I understand, but you made the point in a post of two sentences, in which you said the government is actually subsidizing junk food. I know I am being hardheaded here, but in my first response to your I was just pointing out that a direct subsidy is not the same as a subsidy that has consequences further down the pipe.

Same goes for the food stamps. While junk food bought with a food stamp is essentially paid for by the government, the government is not directly subsidizing junk food with the food stamp program, because you are not required or encouraged (by the government, at least) to buy junk food; you can use the same stamps to buy organic food.

Fair enough. While this might not fit the exact definition of "subsidy", it is certainly an example of the government propping up poor eating habits by making said food cheaper than the alternatives.

But there is a difference between defending treating animals this way and recognizing that there are still healthy products to be had from such animals.

This is certainly a hot topic of debate among food scientists, nutritionists, farmers etc. I tend to think that products from these animals are not healthy.

Are you - by any chance - familiar with Dr. Lustig and his opinion of HFCS?

No, but I will definitely check it out. Thank you for the information.


I do think we pretty much agree. One beauty of progressives is that they tend to have fierce debate within their own ranks. Conservatives are much more likely to have universal and unquestioned points of view. Also, not all American food is shit. I buy most of my groceries from local farmers and an organic co-op. Luckily I live in a place (central coast of California) where healthy lifestyles are held in high esteem.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

I do think we pretty much agree. One beauty of progressives is that they tend to have fierce debate within their own ranks. Conservatives are much more likely to have universal and unquestioned points of view. Also, not all American food is shit. I buy most of my groceries from local farmers and an organic co-op. Luckily I live in a place (central coast of California) where healthy lifestyles are held in high esteem.

I am very glad to hear this, took me quite the effort to make it clear in the most decent way I could. Extra frustrating is the fact that English is not my native language, so it is often hard to explain this kind if intricate little misunderstandings in another language. Anyway, if I am aptly informed, it seems that healthy eating is currently becoming somewhat of a trend in the US. This looks like a very welcome change of mentality.

I agree on the beauty of liberal/progressive people. Me and my friends tend to have the most heated discussions too, sometimes even so hot that 'outsiders' start interfering 'cause they think the shit is about the hit the fan. But afterwards, we always reach a concensus, which is good. In a discussion with educated people, there is usually no one that holds the absolute truth. Though it might not be exactly in the middle, it's definitely not on either edge either (wow, nice semantics with the double either).

I am very eager to hear your view on the movie + discussion I linked earlier. I had a discussion about it with my closest friend for more than three weeks, haha.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

Its wonderful that everyone was able to come together but I'm telling you guys, I'm not cleaning up the mess.

Anyway, if I am aptly informed, it seems that healthy eating is currently becoming somewhat of a trend in the US. This looks like a very welcome change of mentality.

There seem to be two divergent trends... one is the super health-conscious trend which is largely a backlash to the super-expanding waistband trend.