Hell, even if she was, the only person at fault for eating it is the person eating it.
Not really. For example, children. Even excluding them, most people underestimate how much their decisions are influenced by the media. Food companies have a huge impact on what people eat.
Certainly they do, but are you honestly going to blame them for what ultimately is your decision? Far as I know, you can't sue Burger King for making you fat or giving you health problems. I think the legal outcome is analogous to the logical one.
Legal fault is not the same as actual fault or logical connection. It is pretty well accepted that a person's ultimate choice isn't independent of advertising even if it ultimately harms him to go with the advertising. If it wasn't true, ad companies would have stopped advertising horrible shit like cigarettes.
Which kind of backs up my point that its not agrarian diets that are killing us, its just mostly an excess of sugar.
My point isn't that abandoning paleo is killing us, because like I said, I don't practice that.
My point is simply is that I can eat a super high fat diet and be fine, because that's something our evolution has accounted for. And if you are unsure of what to eat, it's a method that's without the test of time. Modern health food standards have not withstood the test of time, so I remain skeptical.
Hell, even if she was, the only person at fault for eating it is the person eating it.
Not really. For example, children. Even excluding them, most people underestimate how much their decisions are influenced by the media. Food companies have a huge impact on what people eat.
Certainly they do, but are you honestly going to blame them for what ultimately is your decision? Far as I know, you can't sue Burger King for making you fat or giving you health problems. I think the legal outcome is analogous to the logical one.
When most available sources tell me that fruit juice is good for me, they I think have a considerable amount of responsibility.
Ideally our government would regulate such things harsher. Fruit juice is uncarbonated soda, fruit flavored. It's not good for you, but most people think it is.
Why are we blaming Paula Deen for causing diabetes? She's one of countless chefs and restaurants that push out equally bad-for-you food. She's not riding this wave by herself. Hell, even if she was, the only person at fault for eating it is the person eating it. Similarly, I'm not mad at McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, and every other fast food joint ever for my health. They didn't point a gun at my head telling me to eat their food. You get fat on Paula Deen's food, the only person you can get mad at is yourself.
Do we hold Joe Camel blameless for encouraging kids to smoke?
When most available sources tell me that fruit juice is good for me, they I think have a considerable amount of responsibility.
Ideally our government would regulate such things harsher. Fruit juice is uncarbonated soda, fruit flavored. It's not good for you, but most people think it is.
Government should be doing a better job here, but of course, they never will, because they're at the mercy of lobbyists and academic inertia.
This is one of the issues where I'm sympathetic to the libertarian position of government screwing things up. But then I realize that food corporations would be just as evil in the absence of government, if not more so.
Our ancestors also worshiped the sun god and died at 35.
Poultry and pork were popular in asia because they required little space to raise as opposed to cattle.
Average life expectancy is only that low because of infant mortality. Not because they were dying of heart attacks and diabetes.
You do realize that most of the stats we've gotten over the last ten years (at least) on life expectancy has only been for those who make it past age three or so, right? Seriously, if you've been convinced that adult life expectancy hasn't changed at all, you are in a cult.
Which kind of backs up my point that its not agrarian diets that are killing us, its just mostly an excess of sugar.
My point isn't that abandoning paleo is killing us, because like I said, I don't practice that.
My point is simply is that I can eat a super high fat diet and be fine, because that's something our evolution has accounted for. And if you are unsure of what to eat, it's a method that's without the test of time. Modern health food standards have not withstood the test of time, so I remain skeptical.
I'm not sure what's worst here: the hilarious similarities to "evolutionary psychology," the naturalist fallacy, the misunderstanding of evolution, or the insistence that it's the best methodology because it's unverifiable.
Bagginses on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You know, I've met Paula Deen, she's a pretty nice lady. Now one might say she's a hypocrite having type one diabetes and both doing her show which has heavy sugar loaded foods and knowing she had diabetes. However that is a far cry from the hyperbole that some people have put forth, and really sounds like sour grapes from many people.
She has type two diabetes, the kind you get from eating her cooking. That's why there's this huge backlash against her, she's been pushing these unhealthy eating habits for years while hiding the consequences of living that way.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
You know, I've met Paula Deen, she's a pretty nice lady. Now one might say she's a hypocrite having type one diabetes and both doing her show which has heavy sugar loaded foods and knowing she had diabetes. However that is a far cry from the hyperbole that some people have put forth, and really sounds like sour grapes from many people.
The big problem is that she kept it under wraps until she lined up the sponsorship and had to disclose the diabetes. It's like not telling people that your recipes are full of asbestos until you cash out with all that cancer medication money.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You know, I've met Paula Deen, she's a pretty nice lady. Now one might say she's a hypocrite having type one diabetes and both doing her show which has heavy sugar loaded foods and knowing she had diabetes. However that is a far cry from the hyperbole that some people have put forth, and really sounds like sour grapes from many people.
The big problem is that she kept it under wraps until she lined up the sponsorship and had to disclose the diabetes. It's like not telling people that your recipes are full of asbestos until you cash out with all that cancer medication money.
There are holes in your metaphor. A more accurate metaphor would be she told everyone that there was asbestos in her recipe, but she didn't say that she got cancer from it until she had cashed out on cancer medication money.
You do realize that most of the stats we've gotten over the last ten years (at least) on life expectancy has only been for those who make it past age three or so, right? Seriously, if you've been convinced that adult life expectancy hasn't changed at all, you are in a cult.
Upper Paleolithic: 33
At age 15, life expectancy an additional 39 years (total age 54)
So once you reach age 15, your life expectancy wasn't too bad. Especially when you consider the complete lack of medicine, doctors, and other modern conveniences.
I'm not sure what's worst here: the hilarious similarities to "evolutionary psychology," the naturalist fallacy, the misunderstanding of evolution, or the insistence that it's the best methodology because it's unverifiable.
Yes. It's far more logical to assume that the human body is best suited to modern health guidelines emphasizing on food that wasn't even readily available until the industrial revolution, and which hasn't done anything to lower or even stabilize the current rate of heart disease.
You know, I've met Paula Deen, she's a pretty nice lady. Now one might say she's a hypocrite having type one diabetes and both doing her show which has heavy sugar loaded foods and knowing she had diabetes. However that is a far cry from the hyperbole that some people have put forth, and really sounds like sour grapes from many people.
The big problem is that she kept it under wraps until she lined up the sponsorship and had to disclose the diabetes. It's like not telling people that your recipes are full of asbestos until you cash out with all that cancer medication money.
There are holes in your metaphor. A more accurate metaphor would be she told everyone that there was asbestos in her recipe, but she didn't say that she got cancer from it until she had cashed out on cancer medication money.
She didn't tell everyone that she had diabetes though, and I don't think she put too much time in lecturing her viewers that her cooking could lead to such health complications. She mainly just focused on cooking things that taste good and let the health-chips fall where they may, I mean talking about how eating a stick of butter a day will eventually kill you is such a downer.
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
I agree that profiting off her illness in this way is pretty awful, but I don't really think her cooking is that much worse than what a lot of high end chefs cook. Most of them use recipes that call for obscene mounts of butter salt and cream
I think the age thing is a red herring, there are legitimate medical explanations for why fructose makes you fat and gives you hypertension, "people aren't evolved to eat this way therefore we should eat a different way" is just a starting hypothesis and its unfortunate that it's a final ideology for people
override367 on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
She didn't tell everyone that she had diabetes though, and I don't think she put too much time in lecturing her viewers that her cooking could lead to such health complications. She mainly just focused on cooking things that taste good and let the health-chips fall where they may, I mean talking about how eating a stick of butter a day will eventually kill you is such a downer.
That is her show, that is what she is contractually obligated to deliver. However evil, is hyperbole, sadistic is also hyperbole. At best, a bit hypocritical, however I'll just quote Paula Deen "I’m your cook, not your doctor. You are going to have to be responsible for yourself.”
I think the age thing is a red herring, there are legitimate medical explanations for why fructose makes you fat and gives you hypertension, "people aren't evolved to eat this way therefore we should eat a different way" is just a starting hypothesis and its unfortunate that it's a final ideology for people
I don't think anyone in the thread has actually advocated that anyone actually follow this diet. Simply that there are good ideas to take from it.
It's also being used as supporting evidence, not a starting point. i.e., we're not saying "anything that was only created in the last 10,000 years is bad, and therefore sugar must be bad, so let's look for evidence to confirm it." The argument is, "There's lots of evidence saying that sugar is bad for you, and the reason this has never been a problem before is because we didn't have the capacity to increase the sweetness of food until the invention of agricultural allowed us to consciously decide which specimens to plant."
For instance, corn as we know it doesn't exist outside of human agriculture. It is physically incapable of being planted without the help of human hands. Because of the relationship between humans and corn, we tried to use it in everything, which resulted in HFCS. That doesn't mean that all things made by human hands will be bad for you. But it does give an explanation on why it's so bad.
She didn't tell everyone that she had diabetes though, and I don't think she put too much time in lecturing her viewers that her cooking could lead to such health complications. She mainly just focused on cooking things that taste good and let the health-chips fall where they may, I mean talking about how eating a stick of butter a day will eventually kill you is such a downer.
That is her show, that is what she is contractually obligated to deliver. However evil, is hyperbole, sadistic is also hyperbole. At best, a bit hypocritical, however I'll just quote Paula Deen "I’m your cook, not your doctor. You are going to have to be responsible for yourself.”
But does saying "it's not my problem you eat what I tell you to eat" really abrogate all responsibility on her end? I understand that many media personalities are not liable when it comes to these sort of things, but I kind of view it in the same ball park as O'Reilly telling people to stop abortion doctors by any means necessary, then throwing up his hands in defense when some sap bombs an abortion clinic. I know It's an extreme comparison, but there are similarities.
I'm not saying that her show and what she does is largely responsible for obesity in the U.S., I'm aware that the majority of responsibility lies in the choices we make as individuals, but she does share at least a small part of the responsibility for perpetuating an unhealthy society. Just a little.
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
For instance, corn as we know it doesn't exist outside of human agriculture. It is physically incapable of being planted without the help of human hands. Because of the relationship between humans and corn, we tried to use it in everything, which resulted in HFCS. That doesn't mean that all things made by human hands will be bad for you. But it does give an explanation on why it's so bad.
Actually without showing some casual link between being created by human hands and being bad for you the whole point is irrelevant.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
there are legitimate medical explanations for why fructose makes you fat and gives you hypertension, "people aren't evolved to eat this way therefore we should eat a different way" is just a starting hypothesis and its unfortunate that it's a final ideology for people
This seems extremely true. If evolution is relevant, it's relevant by virtue of having caused us to have the particular physiologies that we do, in fact, actually have. Why not just study those physiologies directly? We have much better access to them than we do to prehistoric data, and this way we don't have to mediate our understanding with patchy evolutionary theory.
I'm also a little surprised by the tone of the OP and much subsequent discussion, which strikes me as straying into grave-dancing territory. It struck me as sad when I heard the news, because it's sad when people get diabetes. Of course, anyone could have seen it coming. But lots of people do lots of things that are bad for them, and in foreseeable ways, without making it a cause for celebration when they finally reap what they sow. If I had heard that a rock star who sung about doing endless drugs and groupies contracted HIV, it would have struck me as sad, despite that being a reasonably foreseeable result of casual sex and drug use.
Nor do I particularly begrudge her keeping it a secret until now, as she has a right to medical privacy. I'm willing to grant that it may have been the right thing to do for her to go public instead, as part of a public health campaign, but there are nonetheless understandable reasons she might rather not. And I'm not sure if we are being consistent if we apply a standard to her that requires her to do everything in her power for the public health. I, for instance, do not do everything in my power for the public health, although I am not regularly upbraided for it.
I'm willing to agree that the endorsement deal is actually a bit creepy. Celebrity endorsement of medical products seems wrong in general, absent special subject-matter expertise on the part of that celebrity. So I will agree that I think that's fucked up. But comments like Bourdain's nonetheless strike me as fucked up, and more than a little hypocritical in a world where (as has been pointed out) restaurant chefs nigh-universally cook food that will fuck you up something fierce if you eat it on the regular.
MrMister on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I'm not saying that her show and what she does is largely responsible for obesity in the U.S., I'm aware that the majority of responsibility lies in the choices we make as individuals, but she does share at least a small part of the responsibility for perpetuating an unhealthy society. Just a little.
I'm a personal believer of informed decisions and personal responsibility. Her decision to hide her diabetes did not hinder our information on the nutrition of what she is cooking. Which is terrible for you, delicious but terrible for you.
I'm not saying that her show and what she does is largely responsible for obesity in the U.S., I'm aware that the majority of responsibility lies in the choices we make as individuals, but she does share at least a small part of the responsibility for perpetuating an unhealthy society. Just a little.
I'm a personal believer of informed decisions and personal responsibility. Her decision to hide her diabetes did not hinder our information on the nutrition of what she is cooking. Which is terrible for you, delicious but terrible for you.
Exactly. You bear some personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions, for how your words and deeds affect other people.
I think the age thing is a red herring, there are legitimate medical explanations for why fructose makes you fat and gives you hypertension, "people aren't evolved to eat this way therefore we should eat a different way" is just a starting hypothesis and its unfortunate that it's a final ideology for people
I don't think anyone in the thread has actually advocated that anyone actually follow this diet. Simply that there are good ideas to take from it.
It's also being used as supporting evidence, not a starting point. i.e., we're not saying "anything that was only created in the last 10,000 years is bad, and therefore sugar must be bad, so let's look for evidence to confirm it." The argument is, "There's lots of evidence saying that sugar is bad for you, and the reason this has never been a problem before is because we didn't have the capacity to increase the sweetness of food until the invention of agricultural allowed us to consciously decide which specimens to plant."
For instance, corn as we know it doesn't exist outside of human agriculture. It is physically incapable of being planted without the help of human hands. Because of the relationship between humans and corn, we tried to use it in everything, which resulted in HFCS. That doesn't mean that all things made by human hands will be bad for you. But it does give an explanation on why it's so bad.
No plant or animal we consume as a staple exists without agriculture or husbandry.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Paula Deen takes the soul out of soul food.
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
You know, I've met Paula Deen, she's a pretty nice lady. Now one might say she's a hypocrite having type one diabetes and both doing her show which has heavy sugar loaded foods and knowing she had diabetes. However that is a far cry from the hyperbole that some people have put forth, and really sounds like sour grapes from many people.
The big problem is that she kept it under wraps until she lined up the sponsorship and had to disclose the diabetes. It's like not telling people that your recipes are full of asbestos until you cash out with all that cancer medication money.
There are holes in your metaphor. A more accurate metaphor would be she told everyone that there was asbestos in her recipe, but she didn't say that she got cancer from it until she had cashed out on cancer medication money.
She didn't tell everyone that she had diabetes though, and I don't think she put too much time in lecturing her viewers that her cooking could lead to such health complications. She mainly just focused on cooking things that taste good and let the health-chips fall where they may, I mean talking about how eating a stick of butter a day will eventually kill you is such a downer.
That's not true though.
She stated that her food is a sometimes food.
Which t should be.
The issue is though by contracting diabetes it s saying that on the idea that she is practicing what she is preaching, even eating it as a sometimes food it isn't a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
Hell, even if she was, the only person at fault for eating it is the person eating it.
Not really. For example, children. Even excluding them, most people underestimate how much their decisions are influenced by the media. Food companies have a huge impact on what people eat.
Certainly they do, but are you honestly going to blame them for what ultimately is your decision? Far as I know, you can't sue Burger King for making you fat or giving you health problems. I think the legal outcome is analogous to the logical one.
When most available sources tell me that fruit juice is good for me, they I think have a considerable amount of responsibility.
Ideally our government would regulate such things harsher. Fruit juice is uncarbonated soda, fruit flavored. It's not good for you, but most people think it is.
Fruit juice is good for you! In sustainable qualities.
The problem with food attitudes is that when people here that one thing is healthy, they think they need to eat a lot of it.
People don't get taught (or choose to ignore) that a balanced diet is far more important than drinking lots of juice.
Orange juice can contain a lot of essential vitamins. That's good! It also contains a lot of simple sugars.
If taken with a well balanced breakfast that is a good thing. But people don't, they have it with every meal and say, at least I'm getting my vitamin C.
You know, I've met Paula Deen, she's a pretty nice lady. Now one might say she's a hypocrite having type one diabetes and both doing her show which has heavy sugar loaded foods and knowing she had diabetes. However that is a far cry from the hyperbole that some people have put forth, and really sounds like sour grapes from many people.
The big problem is that she kept it under wraps until she lined up the sponsorship and had to disclose the diabetes. It's like not telling people that your recipes are full of asbestos until you cash out with all that cancer medication money.
There are holes in your metaphor. A more accurate metaphor would be she told everyone that there was asbestos in her recipe, but she didn't say that she got cancer from it until she had cashed out on cancer medication money.
She didn't tell everyone that she had diabetes though, and I don't think she put too much time in lecturing her viewers that her cooking could lead to such health complications. She mainly just focused on cooking things that taste good and let the health-chips fall where they may, I mean talking about how eating a stick of butter a day will eventually kill you is such a downer.
That's not true though.
She stated that her food is a sometimes food.
Which t should be.
The issue is though by contracting diabetes it s saying that on the idea that she is practicing what she is preaching, even eating it as a sometimes food it isn't a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
Really?
“Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine. My friends and I cook for regular families who worry about feeding their kids and paying the bills.”
Her show was called "Home Cooking."
Sure, she might give lip service to "sometimes" when pressed by a reporter, but on her show or the public stage? Never. She consistently presented it as everyday food.
It just occurred to me that she actually knew she had diabetes when she defended herself against Bourdain's tweets last year about how her food was fucking killing people.
Paula Deen is pure, unadulterated evil. She is literally in the business of causing a disease and then shilling for the lifelong treatment goldmine that results.
Really? Please tell me im missing some sarcasm tags here.
Are you really claiming that its Paula Deen's fault that you thought it was perfectly alright to use entire reams of butter and sugar in everything you cook?
Why are we blaming Paula Deen for causing diabetes? She's one of countless chefs and restaurants that push out equally bad-for-you food. She's not riding this wave by herself. Hell, even if she was, the only person at fault for eating it is the person eating it. Similarly, I'm not mad at McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, and every other fast food joint ever for my health. They didn't point a gun at my head telling me to eat their food. You get fat on Paula Deen's food, the only person you can get mad at is yourself.
Do we hold Joe Camel blameless for encouraging kids to smoke?
I dont blame him anymore then i blame paula. Smoking is a filthy habit but is regulated by age just like alcohol. Alcohol doesnt really have a poster child you can point fingers at so how is underage drinking any less a problem then underage smoking? Its not, and the fact that they dont have an icon like joe camel says that the responsibility for your own children not drinking or smoking is up to the parents, not the mascot on the package.
If you seriously would follow her recipies using multiple sticks of butter and several cups of sugar, and kept at this every day knowing you were getting fatter without cutting back, then be surprised when you contract diabeties then yeah your probably stupid enough to think that its not your fault.
I'm not a skinny guy, I've got a bit of a gut on me I would like to get rid of but I dont blame anyone but myself and I try to find foods i like to eat that arent obviously bad for me and keep the obviously bad foods to a minimal intake.
Hey even cookie monster knows that cookies are a 'sometimes' food.
Why are we blaming Paula Deen for causing diabetes? She's one of countless chefs and restaurants that push out equally bad-for-you food. She's not riding this wave by herself. Hell, even if she was, the only person at fault for eating it is the person eating it. Similarly, I'm not mad at McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, and every other fast food joint ever for my health. They didn't point a gun at my head telling me to eat their food. You get fat on Paula Deen's food, the only person you can get mad at is yourself.
Do we hold Joe Camel blameless for encouraging kids to smoke?
Joe Camel is a fictional character, so no. Also, even if I believed that her cooking encourages unhealthy addictive eating, it certainly isn't there to encourage children to eat unhealthy habitually. That's an adult decision in every sense of the word.
Human evolution and human society and human technology are at odds with one another. The individuals with the genes that allow greater ability to propagate their genes (whether it's through surviving, energy conversion, sexual attractiveness, etc etc) in modern human society do not pass on those genes to offspring in a meaningfully larger number than those who have weaker propagation genes.
Yeah this is a feature not a bug. Our ability to self determine to the degree we do is not in any way stopping or retarding our evolution.
It's better, even, having selected "stronger" genes doesn't improve the fitness of a species. The greater your collection of genes the strong your species is able to survive. The fact that we keep less beneficial genes in our collective means we're able to survive events where those genes would thrive if something were to happen on a large scale.
Sickle cell is a good example of this. It's a bitch to care for, but prove useful in certain situations and can actually be beneficial to the species as a whole.
Selecting for the "strong" genes in terms of crises can be bad too. Great Pandas for instance, whilst omnivores eat bamboo which is pretty much the worst thing they could eat. But they evolved that this was beneficial to their survival, and now they're having trouble moving forward because of those beneficial genes, which are now detrimental.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
But does saying "it's not my problem you eat what I tell you to eat" really abrogate all responsibility on her end? I understand that many media personalities are not liable when it comes to these sort of things, but I kind of view it in the same ball park as O'Reilly telling people to stop abortion doctors by any means necessary, then throwing up his hands in defense when some sap bombs an abortion clinic. I know It's an extreme comparison, but there are similarities.
She doesn't tell anyone what to eat. I think most of the people who watch her show probably don't have the best diet to begin with. If you're into healthy food, you likely aren't watching her show and following her recipes.
Paula Deen hasn't created the unhealthy food market. Her show has just tapped into a demographic of Americans who eat unhealthily. They will continue to do so even if she keels over from a heart attack tomorrow.
I liken it to a show like the Jersey Shore. That show didn't create idiot meatheads and skanks from the New York area- those people always existed.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It appears people have been again suckered into believing that TV somehow determines behavior.
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!
Posts
My point isn't that abandoning paleo is killing us, because like I said, I don't practice that.
My point is simply is that I can eat a super high fat diet and be fine, because that's something our evolution has accounted for. And if you are unsure of what to eat, it's a method that's without the test of time. Modern health food standards have not withstood the test of time, so I remain skeptical.
When most available sources tell me that fruit juice is good for me, they I think have a considerable amount of responsibility.
Ideally our government would regulate such things harsher. Fruit juice is uncarbonated soda, fruit flavored. It's not good for you, but most people think it is.
Do we hold Joe Camel blameless for encouraging kids to smoke?
Government should be doing a better job here, but of course, they never will, because they're at the mercy of lobbyists and academic inertia.
This is one of the issues where I'm sympathetic to the libertarian position of government screwing things up. But then I realize that food corporations would be just as evil in the absence of government, if not more so.
You do realize that most of the stats we've gotten over the last ten years (at least) on life expectancy has only been for those who make it past age three or so, right? Seriously, if you've been convinced that adult life expectancy hasn't changed at all, you are in a cult.
I'm not sure what's worst here: the hilarious similarities to "evolutionary psychology," the naturalist fallacy, the misunderstanding of evolution, or the insistence that it's the best methodology because it's unverifiable.
The big problem is that she kept it under wraps until she lined up the sponsorship and had to disclose the diabetes. It's like not telling people that your recipes are full of asbestos until you cash out with all that cancer medication money.
Oh look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Upper Paleolithic: 33
At age 15, life expectancy an additional 39 years (total age 54)
So once you reach age 15, your life expectancy wasn't too bad. Especially when you consider the complete lack of medicine, doctors, and other modern conveniences.
Yes. It's far more logical to assume that the human body is best suited to modern health guidelines emphasizing on food that wasn't even readily available until the industrial revolution, and which hasn't done anything to lower or even stabilize the current rate of heart disease.
She didn't tell everyone that she had diabetes though, and I don't think she put too much time in lecturing her viewers that her cooking could lead to such health complications. She mainly just focused on cooking things that taste good and let the health-chips fall where they may, I mean talking about how eating a stick of butter a day will eventually kill you is such a downer.
Try going without grocery stores, refrigerators, antibiotics, doctors, sterile bandages, housing, clean water, etc.
And then keep in mind that the world average today is only 67 years.
I think the age thing is a red herring, there are legitimate medical explanations for why fructose makes you fat and gives you hypertension, "people aren't evolved to eat this way therefore we should eat a different way" is just a starting hypothesis and its unfortunate that it's a final ideology for people
I don't think anyone in the thread has actually advocated that anyone actually follow this diet. Simply that there are good ideas to take from it.
It's also being used as supporting evidence, not a starting point. i.e., we're not saying "anything that was only created in the last 10,000 years is bad, and therefore sugar must be bad, so let's look for evidence to confirm it." The argument is, "There's lots of evidence saying that sugar is bad for you, and the reason this has never been a problem before is because we didn't have the capacity to increase the sweetness of food until the invention of agricultural allowed us to consciously decide which specimens to plant."
For instance, corn as we know it doesn't exist outside of human agriculture. It is physically incapable of being planted without the help of human hands. Because of the relationship between humans and corn, we tried to use it in everything, which resulted in HFCS. That doesn't mean that all things made by human hands will be bad for you. But it does give an explanation on why it's so bad.
I'm not saying that her show and what she does is largely responsible for obesity in the U.S., I'm aware that the majority of responsibility lies in the choices we make as individuals, but she does share at least a small part of the responsibility for perpetuating an unhealthy society. Just a little.
Actually without showing some casual link between being created by human hands and being bad for you the whole point is irrelevant.
This seems extremely true. If evolution is relevant, it's relevant by virtue of having caused us to have the particular physiologies that we do, in fact, actually have. Why not just study those physiologies directly? We have much better access to them than we do to prehistoric data, and this way we don't have to mediate our understanding with patchy evolutionary theory.
I'm also a little surprised by the tone of the OP and much subsequent discussion, which strikes me as straying into grave-dancing territory. It struck me as sad when I heard the news, because it's sad when people get diabetes. Of course, anyone could have seen it coming. But lots of people do lots of things that are bad for them, and in foreseeable ways, without making it a cause for celebration when they finally reap what they sow. If I had heard that a rock star who sung about doing endless drugs and groupies contracted HIV, it would have struck me as sad, despite that being a reasonably foreseeable result of casual sex and drug use.
Nor do I particularly begrudge her keeping it a secret until now, as she has a right to medical privacy. I'm willing to grant that it may have been the right thing to do for her to go public instead, as part of a public health campaign, but there are nonetheless understandable reasons she might rather not. And I'm not sure if we are being consistent if we apply a standard to her that requires her to do everything in her power for the public health. I, for instance, do not do everything in my power for the public health, although I am not regularly upbraided for it.
I'm willing to agree that the endorsement deal is actually a bit creepy. Celebrity endorsement of medical products seems wrong in general, absent special subject-matter expertise on the part of that celebrity. So I will agree that I think that's fucked up. But comments like Bourdain's nonetheless strike me as fucked up, and more than a little hypocritical in a world where (as has been pointed out) restaurant chefs nigh-universally cook food that will fuck you up something fierce if you eat it on the regular.
then y'all can go extra crazy
No plant or animal we consume as a staple exists without agriculture or husbandry.
That's not true though.
She stated that her food is a sometimes food.
Which t should be.
The issue is though by contracting diabetes it s saying that on the idea that she is practicing what she is preaching, even eating it as a sometimes food it isn't a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
Satans..... hints.....
Fruit juice is good for you! In sustainable qualities.
The problem with food attitudes is that when people here that one thing is healthy, they think they need to eat a lot of it.
People don't get taught (or choose to ignore) that a balanced diet is far more important than drinking lots of juice.
Orange juice can contain a lot of essential vitamins. That's good! It also contains a lot of simple sugars.
If taken with a well balanced breakfast that is a good thing. But people don't, they have it with every meal and say, at least I'm getting my vitamin C.
Satans..... hints.....
Really?
“Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine. My friends and I cook for regular families who worry about feeding their kids and paying the bills.”
Her show was called "Home Cooking."
Sure, she might give lip service to "sometimes" when pressed by a reporter, but on her show or the public stage? Never. She consistently presented it as everyday food.
Macaroni and Cheese could be described as an everyday food. That does not mean I'm saying you should eat it every day.
I am talking about in terms of health.
Food you should eat everyday.
Satans..... hints.....
Satans..... hints.....
Wow.
Really? Please tell me im missing some sarcasm tags here.
Are you really claiming that its Paula Deen's fault that you thought it was perfectly alright to use entire reams of butter and sugar in everything you cook?
I dont blame him anymore then i blame paula. Smoking is a filthy habit but is regulated by age just like alcohol. Alcohol doesnt really have a poster child you can point fingers at so how is underage drinking any less a problem then underage smoking? Its not, and the fact that they dont have an icon like joe camel says that the responsibility for your own children not drinking or smoking is up to the parents, not the mascot on the package.
If you seriously would follow her recipies using multiple sticks of butter and several cups of sugar, and kept at this every day knowing you were getting fatter without cutting back, then be surprised when you contract diabeties then yeah your probably stupid enough to think that its not your fault.
I'm not a skinny guy, I've got a bit of a gut on me I would like to get rid of but I dont blame anyone but myself and I try to find foods i like to eat that arent obviously bad for me and keep the obviously bad foods to a minimal intake.
Hey even cookie monster knows that cookies are a 'sometimes' food.
Joe Camel is a fictional character, so no. Also, even if I believed that her cooking encourages unhealthy addictive eating, it certainly isn't there to encourage children to eat unhealthy habitually. That's an adult decision in every sense of the word.
It's better, even, having selected "stronger" genes doesn't improve the fitness of a species. The greater your collection of genes the strong your species is able to survive. The fact that we keep less beneficial genes in our collective means we're able to survive events where those genes would thrive if something were to happen on a large scale.
Sickle cell is a good example of this. It's a bitch to care for, but prove useful in certain situations and can actually be beneficial to the species as a whole.
Selecting for the "strong" genes in terms of crises can be bad too. Great Pandas for instance, whilst omnivores eat bamboo which is pretty much the worst thing they could eat. But they evolved that this was beneficial to their survival, and now they're having trouble moving forward because of those beneficial genes, which are now detrimental.
Paula Deen hasn't created the unhealthy food market. Her show has just tapped into a demographic of Americans who eat unhealthily. They will continue to do so even if she keels over from a heart attack tomorrow.
I liken it to a show like the Jersey Shore. That show didn't create idiot meatheads and skanks from the New York area- those people always existed.
Rigorous Scholarship
Wasn't this settled in the 90s when everybody called bullshit on this idea? What next, we create a black hand label shaped like a silhouette of fat butt cheeks to warn people that the food they are about to see is disturbing to some people and potentially bad?
Edit: They won't be the nice butt cheeks either. They will be covered in acne and dimpled like mad!!!