Do You Own Your Body?

Post Reply New Topic

That's interesting, as a lot of those similar mental moves are common. That being said, I am not sure I find the "leading to more eating" to be that much of a problem. Some people will be highly swayed and others will not. A correlative effect doesn't mean that a diet food or drink undermines effective dieting.


Does the existence of fruit alter the grams of sugar? Does the existence of fruit alter the number of calories? No. Thus, I don't see the problem. If the issue of weight control is calories consumed vs calories used, then, whether or not a nutrigrain bar has fruit is irrelevant. Now, we can argue about all sorts of other details, but simple weight control(the only issue that a tax, or really any policy could ever effectively measure) has little to do with whether you are consuming an item with fruit inside of it.


Because our bodily systems are more developed than a baby's and better able to metabolize these food items. I mean, it's also clear not to give children alcohol, but nobody actually believes an occasional glass of wine will be a major health danger to an adult. This isn't to say that everything we consume is without negative impacts, but it is unlikely that the negative impacts are that large out of all of the other potential problems.


Well, the problem is that we'd actually have to recognize that the move towards processed foods also reflects and goes along side a lot of cultural changes, so, I find it hard to be overly compelled on the matter.

I don't think most people who can afford organic diets will do so. I also think that anybody who goes organic is also very very likely watching their diet a lot better than the average person. However, even though it may be clear that some dietary ideas are better or worse than others, however, I really personally would imagine that mindfulness tends to be one of the more important issues. Most people really just don't watch this area too carefully and splurge whenever there is a lot of food. Given that there is NO REASON why the body will tend towards a healthy weight, I don't think that this is all just a matter of taking the "special and right" diet. Human beings have traditionally lived off of whatever they can get, which is often determined by whatever is available, and the body seeks to gain weight because that would just be the great idea in a time of plenty.

what food are you comparing to?

i would bet most processed food is far healthier than a meal made in a renesaince kitchen.

And that's kind of my mindset. No matter how much we compare our food to any perceived ideal, it's going to almost certainly be better than a whole lot of past food.

This is where I disagree, at least when it comes to the overweight and/or unhealthy population. Just check out the pantry of any overweight family. Their budget goes often goes towards food in boxes, bags, and cans, not fresh produce. My point about the cereal bars was that it's not nearly as nutritious as the average consumer thinks it is. You're thinking seems to be more calories-more weight-end of story. My thinking is about overall health and nutrition. It's not just about the excess, but you have to factor in the deficiencies. It is possible to be slightly overweight and healthy. It is also possible to be at the right weight and be malnourished. I think seeing food as just fat and calories doesn't address the full picture with regards to health.

The alcohol analogy was good. It's true that a baby can't process foods and substances the way adult bodies can. Alcohol is bad for babies. It is OK (possibly good in some instances) for adults, but only in moderation. The problem is that we don't eat processed food in moderation. We're more like raging alcoholics. For some people, it's literally all that they eat. We know that alcohol in excess can lead to health problems (liver problems, etc.) and I believe it's the same with processed food.

To use children again (I go with what I know ), lead poising is a common concern. Doctors routinely check their lead levels as part of normal check-ups. The biggest advice, outside of trying to avoid lead, is to make sure they eat lots of fruits and vegetables because theses foods help to eliminate the toxins more efficiently. Diets higher in fats and refined grains act to hold the toxins in the body longer, even in children who are at healthy weights.

To go back to just the weight part of it, we're not even just fat anymore - we're stunningly huge. Morbid obesity isn't even as high as it goes. They've added a level - super obesity. I think there has to be some addictive component here and I think it has something to do with what we are now adding to our food. Sure, I could be wrong, but then why is this a completely new phenomenon? I don't have the answers here, but I think it bears cause for investigation. Maybe it's because the body, while well-stuffed, is still deprived of basic nutrients so it craves more.

I generally think the entire subject is quite complex.

There's no such thing as a diet soda. If you plan to drink healthy then you would have to focus on water. Also note that we don't really need a lot of water either.

But if you really want to avoid being overweight then just eat amount appropriate for your way of life. If you were a lumberjack then likely the sort of huge meals Americans get would be perfect for you. But if your job involves standing in front of a monitor all day, then you would probably need to get a quarter of that.

Which would indicate that there is an entail on one's body. A cute thought.

Who owns the corpus of one who dies without heir?

I see no characteristic of property. The exchange of services for money involves a transfer of property from the purchaser to the vendor (the price), but no property transfer from the vendor to the purchaser.

When you pay a man to dig a ditch you own no part of him. You part with property (the fee for digging), and in return he agrees to make an agreed modification to something that was already your property (the land on which the ditch is to be dug). But at no time have you ever had a property interest in the ditch digger. He would be free to subcontract to another digger to do the work for him, for example, and you would have no complaint. Even when you have a specific performance interest in the individual contractor (say, hiring a model for a photo call) your contractual right to services has no hallmarks of property.

[quote="visagrunt"]

When you pay a man to dig a ditch you own no part of him/quote]

You own his time and effort for which he has contracted to produce in exchange for the agreed upon wage. If you prepay, you own that amount of time and effort. You bought it. Time and effort is abstract. The body is physical, material, definite and concrete. Two completely distinct categories.

ruveyn

The comparison must be with renting an implement which one may use for a set period. Renting accommodation is rather different.

However, rubeyn, I am not going to hire you. If I am going to pay big bucks for someone's time, I want a lot more than his body. If I want a body without mind or will, I could make me a golem.

Ok, but "malnourished" is a matter of vitamins and minerals. Vitamins are still tracked through the nutrition facts and not the ingredients. Given the large number of vitamin fortified foods, it's hard to say "no fruit" means anything for vitamins or minerals.

Even further though, if you look at past diets, they really couldn't afford variety as the local farmland was mostly focused on producing enough food to live, not on living like a king. I mean, past peoples had more malnutrition problems, and the simple issue is that the increase in height in human populations is likely at least to a very significant degree due to a reduction in malnutrition.

Finally though, many times they literally just have high calorie diets. Calories taste very good.


The problem is that a counter-analogy doesn't work. The analogy of alcohol is used to disprove an inference by saying "Hey, that doesn't always work", but..... you can't really use it to prove anything. I mean, alcohol is simply different than processed foods. Alcohol is a drug used for affecting bodily functions, but processed foods are consumed on the premise that they don't impact bodily functions that much. So, even if you're right, your evidence doesn't arrive at the conclusion.


Right, but is the effect massive? I mean, the problem is that nobody actually CARES about optimal health, instead satisfactory health is the real concern. So, even if you are right, is it *that* meaningful in 99% of cases?


The problem is that so many other factors have changed that trying to do the reasoning you're doing doesn't really work that effectively. I mean, you MIGHT be right, but, I am not sure there is great evidence that you are right. After all, the culture shifts alone surrounding food have been rather large, as have the culture shifts regarding how active people stay, and so on. I mean, malnutrition isn't a new thing, but cheap, tasty food is very new. I mean, maybe it isn't so much that it is processed food as just that it is food that doesn't require cooking or anything of that nature? How do you know with the information at hand? I mean, you seem to have a favored conclusion, but why should we regard that conclusion as right or central?

No you can't. You are not a Kabalist Rabbi.

ruveyn

You cannot own time and effort. You have a contractual right to them, and you can transfer that contractual right to a third party, but that does not make those rights property.

Given that property law scholars question whether intellectual property can properly be classified as property, I think your arugment to ownership of time and effort is in error. It's intuitively elegant, but it relies on too expansive a definition of ownership.

Food that doesn't require cooking is mostly processed, which kind of adds to my point.

My husband works in the food service industry. During a recent period of unemployment, we were constantly checking job listings. We came across an ad for a director of food services for a local school district. In the ad it stated that no culinary or cooking skills were needed because their entire food service program was just heat and eat. This is common practice in schools these days. Everything comes pre-packaged and processed. Ironically, the natural foods that don't need cooking are not served (fresh fruits and veggies). Instead, they get peaches in syrup, or sugar-packed applesauce.

When you look at the very recent rates of childhood obesity (from 1985-2010), the trends are alarming. Check out http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html . Each year is worse than the previous, but a huge jump in obesity came around 2004. Our culture and lifestyles have not changed significantly within the past decade, but obesity rates have. I don't think kids in 2011 are much lazier than kids in 2009, but they are fatter.

The discrepancies are the largest among the low-income population - no real surprise there. These kids depend on schools to feed them both breakfast and lunch. The younger ones are in daycare and eating the subsidized, pre-packaged crap that's served there. Even during the summer, many low-income communities have a lunch program where kids can come and get fed. The families are not providing the bulk of their meals, mostly because they can't afford to. The portions aren't really large, (I've had lunch in the cafeteria with my kid and the amount of food seemed appropriate) but they are tremendously unhealthy. I don't know how you can look at the statistics and not see a relationship between obesity and poor food quality.

Well, no. Cooking is a cost of eating. The less cooking you have to do, the easier it is to just eat. So, if I have to wait 20 minutes and stir and all of that, then getting more food is really inconvenient, but if I can just grab it and eat it, then there is no problem. Whether or not it is processed isn't relevant to that very basic psychological and economical point, and another possible explanation for data isn't helpful.


Well, yes society is changing. We are getting more sedentary. We have included the internet(my main reason for sitting) in how we behave. Certainly as well, other trends such as the reduction in walking and other things also haven't reversed either.


Then why are the adults ALSO gaining weight too? I mean, the rise in obesity is impacting both children and adults, and the claim that two unrelated trends are causing obesity just isn't that plausible given that we have a similar effect in two closely related groups.

I don't think your position is derived from the statistics, number5. You have your favored answer, and you want to make it fit the data however you can. However, the basic issue of calories consumed vs calories burned doesn't seem to be central in your explanatory framework. Instead it's "Processed foods BAD!!", but.... that's not really much of an explanation.

Note: Interestingly I just ran across this writing on the issue: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/08/t ... t-fat.html

I used kids because they are a really good control group for scientific study. By law, they all get weighed annually, maybe except for homeschool kids whose families are also opposed to medical check-ups, and those weight are included in CDC data. The data collection on adults is much more sketchy and inconsistent, especially considering how many adults lack healthcare altogether, and the ones that do, simply may just choose not to go to the doctor. We also know what they eat at school. So their diets vary a lot less than grown-ups.

The internet doesn't explain the jump in obesity rates over just the past few years, so I don't know where you're going with that.

That link you shared was very vague. I found the ungated version to the actual study which was written and published in Germany. It's not even a study, as in a peer-reviewed research paper, but it's a discussion paper providing opinions which are not even endorsed by institute which published the paper. There's some U.S. data, but the paper is unclear as to what total population is even being studied (I think it's global, but again, it's unclear). And on top of that, most of the references and data used are outdated. Basically, it's not a sound scientific argument for anything.

It's not that calories in vs. calories burned doesn't matter. Of course it does. But I think you're missing a huge piece of the puzzle here which is, where those calories come from matters. You'll never here a doctor say "as long as your eating exactly 2000 calories or less, you'll be fine. Who cares if it's all refined flour and nitrates?" Every professional worth the title would emphasize a nutritious diet, and with good reason.