By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should teenagers and children determine what they eat for lunch?

Kasz216 on 29 September 2012
richardhutnik said:
This ends up being a political issue. The entire kids are starving issue is raised by individuals who are more than willing to supports funding of school lunch programs, so the kids end up with less.

More has to be done, a lot more. Not to say government does it all, but i as I have said, society is going to have to stop and think here. Adjusting subsidies would be a start. Figuring out how to get people's taste to change is another. Unhealthy food is cheaper, and apparently shifts to more vegetables and whole grains, is causing an uprising. They throw out fruits and vegetables and complain they are hungry.


I just listed ways to do that.  There are tons of answers to a lot of societies problems... it's just neither side is really willing to consult the sociology on the issue.  Instead argueing over whether failed laws like this deserve to stay in place.  Repeal of such failed laws and recognition of failure is the first step towards people who supported them saying "well what would work."

Though yes.  Right now people are throwing out the healthy food and going hungry.   Thats why such a law is a  bad thing, no matter how well intentioned it is.

 

I kinda of find it funny that your argueing this thread in paralel with the 47% thread.  Your getting downright Krugman like... to quote you directly 

" There is a reality though, that policies and beliefs have consequences, and that can result in people starving."



Around the Network
the2real4mafol on 29 September 2012
Jay520 said:
sales2099 said:
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P


That's the point!

If we didn't sleep there would be a point to it, but you don't need more than 3 main meals a day, unless you do a lot of activity (eg climbing moutains or marathons), which most people in the developed world are not likey to do ever anymore. Eating more than need, makes you fatter but fast food is worse as it doesn't really fill you up and is full of fat and calories, fast food makes you want more, as soon as you've finished, most of the time. But people can eat what they want, but they need to balance their diet properly, I think. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Farsala on 30 September 2012
the2real4mafol said:
Jay520 said:
sales2099 said:
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P


That's the point!

If we didn't sleep there would be a point to it, but you don't need more than 3 main meals a day, unless you do a lot of activity (eg climbing moutains or marathons), which most people in the developed world are not likey to do ever anymore. Eating more than need, makes you fatter but fast food is worse as it doesn't really fill you up and is full of fat and calories, fast food makes you want more, as soon as you've finished, most of the time. But people can eat what they want, but they need to balance their diet properly, I think. 

Meh I usually eat 1 meal a day. But if I was offered 4-5 meals a day I would take it. I think it depends on the person. For me 4 meals a day would not affect me at all, and I sit around all day. But for a 35 year old woman that exercises a lot, 4 meals a day would still be pretty bad.



the2real4mafol on 30 September 2012
Farsala said:
the2real4mafol said:
Jay520 said:
sales2099 said:
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P


That's the point!

If we didn't sleep there would be a point to it, but you don't need more than 3 main meals a day, unless you do a lot of activity (eg climbing moutains or marathons), which most people in the developed world are not likey to do ever anymore. Eating more than need, makes you fatter but fast food is worse as it doesn't really fill you up and is full of fat and calories, fast food makes you want more, as soon as you've finished, most of the time. But people can eat what they want, but they need to balance their diet properly, I think. 

Meh I usually eat 1 meal a day. But if I was offered 4-5 meals a day I would take it. I think it depends on the person. For me 4 meals a day would not affect me at all, and I sit around all day. But for a 35 year old woman that exercises a lot, 4 meals a day would still be pretty bad.

people should eat what they need, eat as they are hungry. It don't matter how much you eat, you need to just do the right amount of activity in your day, otherwise the lost energy becomes fat, that's all. For example, the first people to climb Mt. Everest had 10,000 calories a day because thats what they needed. It depends on your lifestyle, what amount of food you should eat. it's a personal thing, that government shouldn't try to control in places like schools.



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

MrBubbles on 30 September 2012

5-6 meals a day is good for you.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
thranx on 30 September 2012
the2real4mafol said:
Jay520 said:
sales2099 said:
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P


That's the point!

If we didn't sleep there would be a point to it, but you don't need more than 3 main meals a day, unless you do a lot of activity (eg climbing moutains or marathons), which most people in the developed world are not likey to do ever anymore. Eating more than need, makes you fatter but fast food is worse as it doesn't really fill you up and is full of fat and calories, fast food makes you want more, as soon as you've finished, most of the time. But people can eat what they want, but they need to balance their diet properly, I think. 


I am not going to find the links but studies show it is healtheir to eat around six meals a day than three. Eating more meals does not mean you have to eat more, you just spread out how much you eat over a longer period of time.

Its more about what you eat and how much you exercise, and if you have a job that has you at a desk 8 hours a day you need more exercise than someone who has a more active job.



Mr Khan on 30 September 2012
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
This ends up being a political issue. The entire kids are starving issue is raised by individuals who are more than willing to supports funding of school lunch programs, so the kids end up with less.

More has to be done, a lot more. Not to say government does it all, but i as I have said, society is going to have to stop and think here. Adjusting subsidies would be a start. Figuring out how to get people's taste to change is another. Unhealthy food is cheaper, and apparently shifts to more vegetables and whole grains, is causing an uprising. They throw out fruits and vegetables and complain they are hungry.


I just listed ways to do that.  There are tons of answers to a lot of societies problems... it's just neither side is really willing to consult the sociology on the issue.  Instead argueing over whether failed laws like this deserve to stay in place.  Repeal of such failed laws and recognition of failure is the first step towards people who supported them saying "well what would work."

Though yes.  Right now people are throwing out the healthy food and going hungry.   Thats why such a law is a  bad thing, no matter how well intentioned it is.

 

I kinda of find it funny that your argueing this thread in paralel with the 47% thread.  Your getting downright Krugman like... to quote you directly 

" There is a reality though, that policies and beliefs have consequences, and that can result in people starving."

You would have to muster some suerpowerful political forces to beat the corn subsidies.

Not that i disagree.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 30 September 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:

You would have to muster some suerpowerful political forces to beat the corn subsidies.

Not that i disagree.


Yeah I know... I mean that's why there is such a focus on corn ethanol fuel.

If we really wanted clean burning ethanol we'd import the cheaper, cleaner burning sugarcane ethanol from Brazil.


You'd essentially need a coasts + south teamup vs the midwest.

Which obviously will never happen because the midwest is where most of the swing states are.

I imagine it would take fiscal conservatie Republicans agreeing to put a lot more money in renewable energy to get the "coast" democrats along.



the2real4mafol on 30 September 2012
thranx said:
the2real4mafol said:
Jay520 said:
sales2099 said:
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P


That's the point!

If we didn't sleep there would be a point to it, but you don't need more than 3 main meals a day, unless you do a lot of activity (eg climbing moutains or marathons), which most people in the developed world are not likey to do ever anymore. Eating more than need, makes you fatter but fast food is worse as it doesn't really fill you up and is full of fat and calories, fast food makes you want more, as soon as you've finished, most of the time. But people can eat what they want, but they need to balance their diet properly, I think. 


I am not going to find the links but studies show it is healtheir to eat around six meals a day than three. Eating more meals does not mean you have to eat more, you just spread out how much you eat over a longer period of time.

Its more about what you eat and how much you exercise, and if you have a job that has you at a desk 8 hours a day you need more exercise than someone who has a more active job.

fair enough six smaller meals but fast food shouldn't be there still, the problem is that fast food is common and that most people do very inactive jobs (eg office work). The balance to it is key



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Augen on 06 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
This ends up being a political issue. The entire kids are starving issue is raised by individuals who are more than willing to supports funding of school lunch programs, so the kids end up with less.

More has to be done, a lot more. Not to say government does it all, but i as I have said, society is going to have to stop and think here. Adjusting subsidies would be a start. Figuring out how to get people's taste to change is another. Unhealthy food is cheaper, and apparently shifts to more vegetables and whole grains, is causing an uprising. They throw out fruits and vegetables and complain they are hungry.


I just listed ways to do that.  There are tons of answers to a lot of societies problems... it's just neither side is really willing to consult the sociology on the issue.  Instead argueing over whether failed laws like this deserve to stay in place.  Repeal of such failed laws and recognition of failure is the first step towards people who supported them saying "well what would work."

Though yes.  Right now people are throwing out the healthy food and going hungry.   Thats why such a law is a  bad thing, no matter how well intentioned it is.

 

I kinda of find it funny that your argueing this thread in paralel with the 47% thread.  Your getting downright Krugman like... to quote you directly 

" There is a reality though, that policies and beliefs have consequences, and that can result in people starving."


I was curious as to your thoughts on what has happened in Oklahoma City in regards to healthy life style and obesity rates?  

http://www.thiscityisgoingonadiet.com/