 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Why not just have a siren go off? "FAT-so, FAT-so, FAT-so!"
|
|
|
trebuchet
Shipmate
# 11970
|
Posted
The portion size thing is awful. My husband was taught to clean his plate (there are starving childrfen in Ethiopia!) and he has this huge mental barrier to simply leaving food behind. It drives him crazy that I do, so I've started taking it home, and I can generally get at least two and usually three good meals out of one restaurant portion. I'm originally from Canada and this was a big cultural difference when I first started living down here, but Canada seems to be catching up - I am noticing larger and larger portion sizes when I go home.
I'd be against a law to cut portion sizes but I'd love to see them have to put the nutritional information in their menus.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
Certainly if you go into a White Castle and then go into a Subway, you're going to see a different clientele. Part of this is money (Subway, while still cheap, is more expensive) and part of it is cultural and part of it is individual choice, and getting people to change their individual choices is going to be hard, of course.
I'd like to disagree with the assumption though. ... Why pay subway prices. It's not as if it takes that long to make a sandwich even if you toast it.
No assumptions involved - I was responding to RooK's acute comment about how if restaurants offer healthier choices, some people will just go to the restaurants that don't. I wasn't trying to cover all possible sandwich options.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Five drinks in a day is a binge and three is "problem drinking".
I worked for awhile as Secretary to the Director of Addiction Services in Nova Scotia, and I just wanted to correct this even though it's not really on-topic. Three drinks isn't problem drinking. It's three drinks a day every day, and it's only when coupled with other things - the definitions for problem drinking are intentionally a bit fuzzy and are intended to give counsellors a tool to talk about lowering consumption with people who obviously have a problem but aren't full-blown alcoholics. If you have more than 12 drinks a week then they start to look at how drinking affects your life to see if you're a problem drinker. So, if you for example have two glasses of wine with your leisurely supper every day, and that's it, no lowered job performance or marital difficulties stemming from drinking or anything like that, then you're almost definitely not a problem drinker despite being over the 12/week rule-of-thumb.
Anybody who tells you you're a problem drinker because you have three drinks in one day (and on no other evidence) is talking out their arse.
Posts: 60 | From: Concord, NH, USA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
That interesting about portions being smaller in Canada, I never noticed that. In Australia they seemed to be the same size as I was used to.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What's the logic behind being disallowed from moving one's own belongings (bought food) from one place to another?
Health regulations. A rash of food poisoning, replete with blame upon establishments otherwise blameless, based upon leftovers taken home was the catalyst I believe. The establishment cannot control the transport and storage of its food unless it is a takeaway joint. Most of my favourite places do this - which are the ones (I've found) that have the ridiculously huge portions. If I am dining at a fancy place, I don't mind that the steak is bigger than what I would serve for myself at home, but I certainly notice if the portions are healthy. Most of my local 'ethnic' places are takeaway as well as dine in* so we rarely run into that problem unless we're at pubs or clubs.
I have friends who eat significantly more than Nov and I - often I have kids meals (particularly from your big burger places) whereas they will have a large meal plus another burger. Part of it is what you acclimatise to, part of it is that both of them are six foot + tall and big with it, so tend towards needing more fuel than 5 and a half foot me. When we are out at fancy places, Nova and I do the four dishes rule: we order four dishes in total for the most part. Often this is two entree, two mains and I might have a coffee. Sometimes only one entree and one dessert. I am slowly weaning the both of us off dessert as expected.I'm slowly weaning myself off the 'starving children in Ethiopia' rule of eating too.
*I just realised that for the most part, I rarely eat out anywhere not ethnic. And that most takeway places are ethnic in some way.
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
trebuchet said,
quote:
If you have more than 12 drinks a week then they start to look at how drinking affects your life to see if you're a problem drinker.
I wonder if your drinks are bigger than ours this side of the pond, as well as your food portions?
I would regard 12 drinks a week as pretty moderate. The recommended limits over here are (I believe) 14 for a woman and 21 for a man - and most people think those are a bit of a joke (including my doctor).
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I would regard 12 drinks a week as pretty moderate. The recommended limits over here are (I believe) 14 for a woman and 21 for a man - and most people think those are a bit of a joke (including my doctor).
M.
[forgive the pedantry]
In the UK I think it is 14 units for a woman and 21 for a man, not drinks.
quote:
1 unit of alcohol=
1/2 pint beer
1 small glass wine
Source
That's about 1 1/2 pints a day
[/forgive the pedantry]
[ 19. December 2006, 09:38: Message edited by: PeaceFeet ]
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What's the logic behind being disallowed from moving one's own belongings (bought food) from one place to another?
Hugal is a chef, and is very conscientious about not heating things up more than once if they have already been cooked, as it's very dangerous food-poisoning wise.
A restaurant meal may well have been prepared earlier and heated up to order, so if you take it home and heat it up next day, you could be giving yourself a nice plateful of nasties.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
trebuchet said,
quote:
If you have more than 12 drinks a week then they start to look at how drinking affects your life to see if you're a problem drinker.
I wonder if your drinks are bigger than ours this side of the pond, as well as your food portions?
I would regard 12 drinks a week as pretty moderate. The recommended limits over here are (I believe) 14 for a woman and 21 for a man - and most people think those are a bit of a joke (including my doctor).
M.
No, the definition of standard drink is the same both sides of the pond, but we're insane about alcohol over here. There seems to be very little sense of a moderate drinker -- someone who drinks every day but is not a problem drinker. The definition of problem drinker keeps being defined down until your Aunt Margaet is a souse because she has a sherry at lunch, a g&t before dinner and a glass of wine with dinner. That's three drinks a day, and in my mind, nothing remarkable. It's probably more actually, because a "drink" is teeny -- 5 oz. wine, one oz. spirits, 12 oz. beer, and most people pouring a glass of wine don't measure it. My wine glasses hold 6.5 oz. if you fill them to the place that it seems intuitive to fill them. So if I have three glasses of wine in an evening (not at all unusual), I've generally had nearly four standard drinks. So I'm a souse, too.
Oh, well. Be who you are, that's what I say.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
Having just read the whole way through this thread I need to unload a few thoughts.
OK, I'm clinically obese. I am also diabetic. I would like to point out to all the body fascists out there (if only my mother was reading this) that I put on the weight after I started using insulin, that is to say my diabetes was not caused by obesity but actually by pregnancy and heredity, .
I hate being overweight. It's all very well for people to say that I don't look like a size 22 (uk) but I know it. I eat healthily and not excessively, no junk food or ready meals, am not quite teetotal, and walk or bike everywhere. Exercise just turns the flab to muscle, which of course weighs more. A doctor recently told me that it is very difficult to lose weight on the amount of insulin I am currently injecting.
So, when well-meaning busybodies hand me leaflets or offer unsolicited advice on ways to lose weight they should hardly be surprised to get an earful of abuse from me. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT, YOU MORONS.
PS my cholesterol level and blood pressure are fine.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by C#:
So, when well-meaning busybodies hand me leaflets or offer unsolicited advice on ways to lose weight they should hardly be surprised to get an earful of abuse from me. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT, YOU MORONS.
PS my cholesterol level and blood pressure are fine.
Except when people hand you weight-loss leaflets, presumably? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The trouble is that politicians (and civil servants, I accept) are always looking for quick solutions to long-term problems - it's called outcomes-based activity, apparently (focus on 'activity' rather than 'outcomes', if you ask me). It's back to the days of 'Yes, Minister' - if it's cheap, it's popular.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
BMIs? Joke. The entire All Blacks front row are classed, by BMI, as "morbidy obese"! Not bad for three blokes at the supreme peak of fitness.
Bad example. Excessive muscle can lead to all sorts of health problems (pumping blood through all that muscle isn't easy). And most obese people are not that heavily muscled. If you do actually have above average muscle (I do) then you can probably downgrade your BMI results a bit. Personally I rank as severely obese by the BMI, but in reality I judge it as only being obese. I don't regard the BMI as particularly precise (you can have serious weight problems and have a perfect BMI) or meaningful on its own, but it shouldn't be ignored for the average person. And is a decent rule of thumb
I have heard of body builders in the military getting in trouble for having their BMI to high. Which is an example of giving to much credence to the BMI.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I have read through this thread with interest. I work on the NHS and privately, and I have seen a shocking increase in the number of obese patients in the last twenty years. I have strong opinions on this.
The problem of increasing obesity is complex, but the implications are quite simple. If the current trend continues, the tax-funded NHS will not be able to afford treatment of obesity-related illness. This is simple fact. There is good epidemiological research to show this. So, we do have a problem.
Fat people get fat because they eat too much and don’t burn it off enough. (The numbers of people with metabolic-illness-caused obesity is really truly tiny). Obesity is not inevitable- it is a function of the choices we make with our lifestyles. Note the word choices.
It is morally doubtful that we should have the right to be obese if the resultant illness places an unsustainable burden on society.
My own feeling is that, if you choose the right to be obese, then you should pay for the costs of the burden you place on society with your illness and premature death. You should do this by Fat Tax, and private healthcare.
Cigarettes are taxed, and the revenues used for (nuclear weaponry and) healthcare. Fatty foods should be the same. If it cost you twenty quid for a plate of chips, you would probably get thin.
If you need cardiovascular surgery for the crippling angina you get from your coronary arteriosclerosis, or the pedal amputation you need because of your uncontrolled diabetes because you’re obese, then you should be obliged to pay for that out of your own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. Then you would probably get thin.
People vote with their wallets. If you price pork pies out of their pockets, they would buy broccoli and carrots instead. It’s that simple.
If we had legislation for Fat Tax and refused public-funded healthcare to obese patients (like we increasingly do for smokers), then people would have the moral right to their obesity, and all the suffering that goes with it. From my view within the NHS, this is where I think things will go in the next ten years.
The way things are otherwise going, treating all the fat people for illness caused by their obesity means we won’t have the money to treat little children with leukaemia.
Think about that when you’re eating your dinner tonight.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Right, obesity is caused by people eating the wrong sorts of foods, because healthier food is more expensive, so the way to deal with people who can't afford posh food is to refuse to treat them on the NHS and expect them to go private? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Well said, dogwonderer (welcome to the ship, BTW - drop by All Saints and introduce yourself!)
I'm with you all the way except here: quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
If you need cardiovascular surgery for the crippling angina you get from your coronary arteriosclerosis, or the pedal amputation you need because of your uncontrolled diabetes because you’re obese, then you should be obliged to pay for that out of your own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. Then you would probably get thin.
on this side of the pond, most people (? she says with lack of any real numbers) are paying for their own health care, either out of pocket or through health insurance premiums. It's not working.
In my experience, this results in a) people not getting preventative medical care at all and their first treatment being the crash cart and ER, and b) health care premiums going further and further out the roof to where if you work for a small company, chances are you dont have insurance at all, which brings you back to scenario a.
I wish I could say making people pay their medical privately would work, but it demonstrably won't.
the $40 plate of fries would work for me, though! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
re: BMI - Raptor is right. When I was in my size 7's, size 5 for UK folks, I was technically "overweight" on the BMI at 160 pounds. I looked great. I also hauled/split/wrangled/hiked etc as required for our living situation. My doctor laughed when I asked her about the BMI.
Now, I think I'm probably "shockingly obese" on the BMI or however they put it, but I'm not that much heavier than I was before. however, my components ratio has changed - i.e. zee butt she has grown.
so I give the BMI very little credence except as a starting place for the conversation. for my height, I think the BMI says my weight should be something like 115 lbs. I'd slip down the shower drain at that weight.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I don't know, comet.
Surely, if you make unhealthy food more expensive, those with the money and who really do want the unhealthy food will just buy it anyway. Those who can no longer afford it, but can't afford healthier, more expensive food - what do they do? And what is the point of imposing financial sanctions on them?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Right, obesity is caused by people eating the wrong sorts of foods
That is exactly not what the godbotherer said. Its not about the "wrong sorts" of foods it is about the wrong amount of food. He she or it wrote:
quote:
Fat people get fat because they eat too much and don’t burn it off enough
Which is entirely and undeniably true - and if you think it is false then either you don't understand what what are saying or else you have discovered a way to break thge first law of thermodynamics, which woudl be deeply cool. Well, it would be rather hot actually. And could lead to all sorts of fun applications from cheap spaceflight to perpetual motion to time travel to anti-gravity.
Also the idea that:
quote:
healthier food is more expensive
is simple nonsense, as any visit to a supermarket will tell you.
That said, nearly everything else that Dogbolter said is elitist cack and in the unlikely event that the scummy little troll does work for the NHS I hope they are cleaning the toilets - God forbid that such a prat should be in contact with patients.
[ 19. December 2006, 17:23: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Right, so it's all to do with the amount you eat and not with what you eat, is it? Whatever.
And I didn't notice much healthy food in Nettos, Liddles and some of the other cheaper supermarkets last time i went in to them ooo about a week ago.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I predict that we have reached the practical limits of life-prolonging
Other way round I think (and very much hope). There are lots and lots of possible treatments for all sorts of serious problems coming into the frame right now.
More likely that in a hundred years time the world will be divided into two kids of countries. Those that spend 30-60% of their entire GDP on social healthcare free to everyone at the point of use, and those that are in a permanent civil war between the long-lived elite rich owners and the short-lived poor workers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That is exactly not what the godbotherer said. Its not about the "wrong sorts" of foods it is about the wrong amount of food.
Then why chunter on about fatty foods?
Also, if my position is so innacurate, how do you explain this article on the link between obesity and income?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I don't know, comet.
Surely, if you make unhealthy food more expensive, those with the money and who really do want the unhealthy food will just buy it anyway.
sure. and in those instances they can afford the healthcare too, theoretically.
quote:
Those who can no longer afford it, but can't afford healthier, more expensive food - what do they do? And what is the point of imposing financial sanctions on them?
Papio - you've got me confused: in your scenario is the healthy food or the unhealthy food more expensive? I understood dogwonderer's scenario to mean that the healthier food would be more affordable than the junk food.
and all I said on that is that a $40 plate of fries would work for me.
quote:
Gwai said:But comet, I rather think that if we (on our side of the pond) didn't fund the incredibly expensive things that people (understandably) want for their loved ones (like keeping vegetables alive for years) then health care wouldn't be as expensive. I predict that we have reached the practical limits of life-prolonging and that some of these more expensive treatments are going to be gradually used less and less so that we can afford some health care for more.
Not arguing that. our system here is a complete mess. I'm the first to admit that. I have spent kiloJoules of wasted energy agonizing over our crap healthcare-funding system. all I was saying is that having to pay privately for health care does not create a skinny nation.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
sure. and in those instances they can afford the healthcare too, theoretically.
Yes. But by making rich fat people go private you give them less reason to care what happens to the NHS, which i think would be bad for the country on the grounds that it may undermine intellectual and popular support for the NHS due to people being forced to support it with their taxes, but not be able to use it. Don't you think that might cause even more resentment?
quote:
Papio - you've got me confused: in your scenario is the healthy food or the unhealthy food more expensive? I understood dogwonderer's scenario to mean that the healthier food would be more affordable than the junk food.
Well, it is obviously the case that is you make unhealthy food more expensive then healthy food then healthy food will be "more affordable". However, for those on very low incomes, some healthy food is not currently affordable - so should we look at ways of reducing the price of healthy food in addition to making fatty food more expensive? And could that work in practice anyway?
Unless those on very low incomes, who are actually more likely to be obese, are to be expected to live on lettuce, tomatoes and plain pasta - which hardly seems a realistic stance to me, personally speaking.
(typos)
[ 19. December 2006, 17:45: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
And I didn't notice much healthy food in Nettos, Liddles and some of the other cheaper supermarkets last time i went in to them ooo about a week ago.
I can buy 5 kilos of potatoes for 2 quid in Tesco's, I can buy really quite large amounts of cabbage for less, tins of beans or peas of various sorts costing between 10p and 70p a tin. Carrots maybe 60/70p a kilo, onions cheaper, plenty of more exotic vegetables not a lot more. Dried pasta about 50p a kilo, cheap nasty American rice about the same, good Indian basmati maybe twice that.
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one. And more fun and palatable with a few spices and herbs. And a lot cheaper than buying cheesey microwaveable ready-meals or transfatburgers from MacWimpies
You could even have bread. Decent bread costs about 50-70p a loaf. White sliced crap 20-30p a loaf - it tastes unpleasant but it contains the same nutrients minus a bit of roughage and makes decent if crispy toast. If you bake it yourself you can get cheap flour for prices occasionally as low as 9p a kilo, and almost always less than 30p a kilo - posh organic stuff is indeed more expensive, though still not so expensive that anyone with any income at all couldn't afford it if they didn't want to.
Or fruit. Apples are surprisingly cheap in season, bananas even more suprisingly cheap all year round.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
However, for those on very low incomes, some healthy food is not currently affordable - so should we look at ways of reducing the price of healthy food in addition to making fatty food more expensive? And could that work in practice anyway?
Absolutely. Here in North America, the reason McD's sells hamburgers for 99 cents and salads for $2.49 is because of huge government subsidies, marketing boads, and the like for particular agricultural products (meat, dairy/poultry, wheat, corn). Our own governments are drowning us in a Niagara of subsidized high-fructose corn syrup.
We created this distorted and unhealthy mess; we can uncreate it. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
sure. and in those instances they can afford the healthcare too, theoretically.
Yes. But by making rich fat people go private you give them less reason to care what happens to the NHS, which i think would be bad for the country on the grounds that it may undermine intellectual and popular support for the NHS due to people being forced to support it with their taxes, but not be able to use it. Don't you think that might cause even more resentment?
forgive me for not being all studied up on the NHS.
I see it more like, perhaps plastic surgery. does the NHS pay for that? I assume it doesn't. therefore, if you have the cash flow go ahead and get your nose job, and it hurts none. but don't take up boxing, knowing you'll likely have a few broken noses, without understanding that you're on your own for the rhinoplasty.
This would not mean that if someone was hit by a truck and a radical reconstruction be necessary, the NHs would leave them to suffer; the difference is choice. and I agree with Dog-waterer or whatever - I'm pretty sure the vast majority of obesity is a choice issue. I wouldn't think those with hypothyroid or related illnesses would be denied health care.
all that being said, you're attempting to hold my feet to the fire for what somebody else said.
quote:
Well, it is obviously the case that is you make unhealthy food more expensive then healthy food then healthy food will be "more affordable". However, for those on very low incomes, some healthy food is not currently affordable - so should we look at ways of reducing the price of healthy food in addition to making fatty food more expensive? And could that work in practice anyway?
I say yes, and yes!
And as ken said - if you go look, and use some careful math, you can see that in reality, healthy food used mindfully is cheaper today - it's just not easily cheaper. I can make a huge pot of stew for about $7 (last time I bothered adding it up) less if I've done any of the growing/fishing/shooting myself. from that pot, I can freeze (say) 7 16 oz. servings for later use. (probably more, but I'm trying to save myself whipping out the calculator) that comes to a buck per 16 ounces - whereas canned soup may look cheaper as it's only $3.00, it's actually more expensive.
sorry for all the inevitable crossposts, I was working.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one.
but it can make for a very exciting menu with a few basic skills mastered and some relatively cheap spices in the cabinet.
I think my "big spender" item (not counting my expensive and wholely unnecessary imported wine habit) is olive oil. For me and my family, it is worth the cost.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
I'm with Ken. Good food is not necessarily expensive (at least, not here).
The secret is knowing how to cook good meals from whatever you have. And then not to eat more than you need of what you cook.
Fruit and veges are usually seasonal. You buy when a thing is cheap and you don't buy when it is dear. You learn to cook what's in season.*
No matter where I chose to buy hamburgers, chips and coke for my family, I could easily make a cheaper meal using stuff bought from the supermarket. For drinks, we'd have water.
The fresh-food-is-too-expensive is a red herring. Even in ultra-expensive London, it was way cheaper for us to buy from the supermarket and cook than to live off McDonalds/pizza etc. Way cheaper.
*I do know that in Alaska and other places of similar remoteness and not-so-farminess, things tend to stay expensive.
[ 19. December 2006, 18:30: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
does the NHS pay for that? I assume it doesn't. therefore, if you have the cash flow go ahead and get your nose job, and it hurts none. but don't take up boxing, knowing you'll likely have a few broken noses, without understanding that you're on your own for the rhinoplasty.
This would not mean that if someone was hit by a truck and a radical reconstruction be necessary, the NHs would leave them to suffer
Actually, and I speak from personal experience here, unless the rules have changed in the last few years (I don't know if they have or not) the NHS makes a distinction between "restorative" plastic surgery and plastic surgery purely for vanity. It also takes account of how much mental suffering the deformity or whatever is causing. Therefore, if someone was hit by a truck, it is entirely possible that the NHS would cough up.
quote:
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of obesity is a choice issue.
It may very well be so, but I am interested in why people make the choices that they do. I don't see how you can make an informed proscription for the improvement of public health unless you know a thing or two about why. I'm not saying i do and you don't. I'm saying that I don't think dogwonderer took that fully into account.
quote:
you're attempting to hold my feet to the fire for what somebody else said.
Which you have stated that you agree with.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one.
True. I guess I find it hard to envision many people making that choice, really - which is not to say that I am disagreeing with you, as such...
quote:
Orinally Posted by Olivia G
Here in North America, the reason McD's sells hamburgers for 99 cents and salads for $2.49 is because of huge government subsidies, marketing boads, and the like for particular agricultural products (meat, dairy/poultry, wheat, corn). Our own governments are drowning us in a Niagara of subsidized high-fructose corn syrup.
We created this distorted and unhealthy mess; we can uncreate it. OliviaG
I didn't realise that, so thank you. However, I will need to find out more about why the subsidies are given and how they are allotted before I can say much more. An imediate question is - how, if at all, would changes in the subsidary rates effect farmers?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
*I do know that in Alaska and other places of similar remoteness and not-so-farminess, things tend to stay expensive.
it's just relative. everything is more expensive, because it's shipped. even the packaged crap.
and in the summers, we actually have some lovely farmer's markets, but nothing compared to those "farmier" places, I'm sure.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
The secret is knowing how to cook good meals from whatever you have.
I would say the secret is knowing how to cook. I just think that cooking from scratch is becoming an increasingly arcane art for many people.
If you are already using sauce/seasoning packets, why not just buy a whole prepared meal? I mean you are busy and there is something good on the telly. And then your children are never going to learn how to cook.
I would note I can't cook for shit. But I don't have a wife, kids and a full time job. So I can at least do semi-decent vegetables or salad with whatever meat I am cooking (which most of the time involves a sauce packet or butchery filo/rissoles).
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Well, my mother can't cook for quids. I learned some (very) basics in school and taught myself the rest.
It's a matter of going out and buying a cookbook or three and doing what they say to do. You get good at it pretty quickly.
And you need never add a packet sauce to a meal again. (God, they taste so salty, yuk!).
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one.
but it can make for a very exciting menu with a few basic skills mastered and some relatively cheap spices in the cabinet.
Yes, but you have to cook them. There are times when preparation and cooking and waiting and washing up can just be too much effort. This is why fast food and ready meals succeed - get a bag of something already cooked elsewhere, or buy something to take home, shove in the microwave, and take out three minutes later. Not everyone has the necessary enthusiasm or energy for cooking and all that goes with it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Therefore, if someone was hit by a truck, it is entirely possible that the NHS would cough up.
exactly my point.
quote:
...unless you know a thing or two about why. I'm not saying i do and you don't. I'm saying that I don't think dogwonderer took that fully into account.
quote:
you're attempting to hold my feet to the fire for what somebody else said.
Which you have stated that you agree with.
So? that's like saying that because I voted for a democrat, I'd better defend everthing they have on their platform.
Papio, meet dogwonderer; dogwonderer, Papio has a few questions for you.
quote:
An imediate question is - how, if at all, would changes in the subsidary rates effect farmers?
well, market cost would be more honest, if I understand it correctly. Therefore - the cost of HFCS as a sweetener would actually reflect the cost of growing the corn and processing it. right now, the cost of HFCS is artificially cheap, because the government is paying part of the cost for it's growth and production.
since it is so cheap, it's the low-price choice as a sweetener to those who produce ... well damn near anything prefab, the crap is in everything ... over sugar or turbinado or whatever. thanks to government subsidies.
I personally would love it if the government would only subsidize (and I'm not terribly comfortable with subsidies at all, frankly) those foods proven to support a healthy lifestyle and healthy weight. like good old fashioned carrots.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
However, I will need to find out more about why the subsidies are given and how they are allotted before I can say much more. An imediate question is - how, if at all, would changes in the subsidary rates effect farmers?
That's a really good question, Papio. One thing to remember as you explore the possible answers is that the bigger the farm, the bigger the subsidies. What starts off as government programs to help individual family farm ends up as corporate welfare. Those corporations will have a lot to lose if there are any changes, and they won't hesitate to use the individual farmer as their "poster child" to resist changes.
And yes, healthy, home-cooked meals can be affordable. They are also time-consuming, need some degree of planning, and require cooking skills, staples in the pantry, equipment and appliances. If it was easy for the poor to assemble these things, would we be having this conversation? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Comet - my ramblings on the NHS on this thread are mainly just ramblings. I am thinking this out as I type - so i apologise for making it look as though as though all my ramblings on the NHS were aimed at you - they weren't. Just me thinking out loud. That said, if you were going to defend a view then others have a right to question both the view and your defence of it. If dogwonderer can answer my concerns about his/her proposal then all well and good...
I actually don't know if a boxer could get treated on the NHS. I don't see an immediate reason why not, since they presumably pay their taxes the same as anyone else. ISTM that if a person's taxes contribute to the NHS they should be entitled to use the NHS when and if they need it. If some people choose not to, that is up to them, but doesn't effect the basic principle.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Not everyone has the necessary enthusiasm or energy for cooking and all that goes with it.
myself included, some days.
this is a choice. Some days I buy a pizza. Somedays I nuke something from a box. but I know this will make me fatter, and therefore I choose to make those days exceptions, not the rule.
and frankly, once I knew how, I don't think I put any more effort into a salad, stir-fry, or stew than I would with a
Hamburger Helper.
and like LATA, my cooking skills are mostly self-driven. Mom taught me basics, but they were uninspired basics. I taught myself to make it taste good. (sorry mom) And frankly, it's just not rocket science.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
I really hate perpetual subsidies (as opposed to hardship subsidies). But I also think allowing farming to be outsourced to developing nations is incredibly dangerous (which is what would happen in many cases is all subsidies were removed). But maybe that is just because I am paranoid about countries needing to be relatively self-sufficient (I blame the threat of nuclear holocaust during my childhood).
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
I think that the NHS angle is the wrong one. It's not fair (if you like) to say "We won't treat you because you are obese", when other illnesses get treated (I think obesity - as oppossed to tubbiness - is an illness and should be treated as such) regardless of lifestyle.
However, all NSH or any health system can do for a morbidly obese person, or a person whose health is so dodgy from smoking/eating/drinking is patch that person up a bit. At the end of the day, they'll almost certainly have a short life, compared to others who don't have those conditions.
You don't see many old fat people. They generally die, and will continue to do so, in their 40s, 50s and 60s.
I can't see why anyone would want to die young if there is a choice. It might be a hard choice, but dying of a heart attack, or having toes amputated from diabetes-related gangrene is tough too.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Comet - my ramblings on the NHS on this thread are mainly just ramblings. I am thinking this out as I type - so i apologise for making it look as though as though all my ramblings on the NHS were aimed at you - they weren't. Just me thinking out loud.
no worries, I didn't take it as a personal attack. But you did name me in your comments, so I did take it as asking my personal take on it.
quote:
That said, if you were going to defend a view then others have a right to question both the view and your defence of it.
I said I agree with him, except on the heathcare cost issue. since when does this mean you should direct your issues with what he said at me?
me: "hey I love Santa Claus!"
you: "How can you possibly defend his blatant B&E every year?"
dude - YMMV. Chill.
quote:
ISTM that if a person's taxes contribute to the NHS they should be entitled to use the NHS when and if they need it. If some people choose not to, that is up to them, but doesn't effect the basic principle.
I'm not sure I agree, though. for a local equivelent - I expect the local DOT to plow the public road outside my house. this is what my public money is going for.
but I want my driveway plowed too. Does being a tax payer and voting member of the public mean I get to have my private property plowed on the public dime?
other people can opt out, but it doesn't effect the basic principle, right?
I don't think so.
(and for the record, Papio, I'm not pissed at you, just responding)
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Not everyone has the necessary enthusiasm or energy for cooking and all that goes with it.
myself included, some days.
this is a choice. Some days I buy a pizza. Somedays I nuke something from a box. but I know this will make me fatter, and therefore I choose to make those days exceptions, not the rule.
Just have to add that staying fit and healthy and thin takes effort. It does not happen naturally for most people, at least in this day and age. It takes effort to shop and cook decent food, and then you still need to exercise. There is no magic to it. It would be lovely to have some nice scissors to cut off the excess flab, but they don't exist (I used to dream about such things!). It would be nice to pop a pill that makes your heart healthy, but there is not one. At the end of the day, it still comes down to effort.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I think obesity - as oppossed to tubbiness - is an illness and should be treated as such
That word you keep using. I don't think it means what you think it means. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Medically most "fat" people are obese. Not severely, or morbidly obese, but obese nonetheless. The common usage is a bit more extreme than the medical usage.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I'm not sure I agree, though. for a local equivelent - I expect the local DOT to plow the public road outside my house. this is what my public money is going for.
but I want my driveway plowed too. Does being a tax payer and voting member of the public mean I get to have my private property plowed on the public dime?
other people can opt out, but it doesn't effect the basic principle, right?
I don't think so.
(and for the record, Papio, I'm not pissed at you, just responding)
I'm not sure that the anology hold. The rules say that you pay your taxes and you get to have the road plowed outside your house. You don't get to have your drive plowed, because that is outside the rules of the contract. Seems fair enough to me.
If the rules say that boxers can be treated on the NHS for sports injuries then that also seems fair enough to me, on the whole. I know that you can argue that the injuries are self-inflicted, but so are a lot of other injuries - some of which may be life threatening. In some cases, the extent of the responsibility that lies with the injured party may not be clear cut. I don't think it is ethical for lawyers and surgeons to argue the toss about whether someone should get free treatment whilst a person's life is ebbing away, and for other reasons wouldn't be happy for the NHS to cease being free at the point of use anyway.
I suspect that we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
You might be right, the raptor.
Left to Right: Tubby and obese.
At least, what I'm talking about. (but probably both obese)
[ 19. December 2006, 19:31: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Think about that when you’re eating your dinner tonight.
When Penguin Week is on Channel five , and I can watch King chicks feeding on regurgitated lamp-fish? Are you insane?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Just have to add that staying fit and healthy and thin takes effort. It does not happen naturally for most people, at least in this day and age. It takes effort to shop and cook decent food, and then you still need to exercise. There is no magic to it. It would be lovely to have some nice scissors to cut off the excess flab, but they don't exist (I used to dream about such things!). It would be nice to pop a pill that makes your heart healthy, but there is not one. At the end of the day, it still comes down to effort.
This is so very true, and it's pretty much what Ruth was saying. Someone very dear to me has over the last two years gone from being quite overweight to being within healthy limits. That person believes that another 6months will see that person to actual trimness for the first time in years. What did it take? Exercising for 45 minutes a day, every day for two years, unless too ill to do so, and turning desserts and bad snacking to occasional treats, and eating moderate portions at all other times. It required nothing less than a complete change of lifestyle and staying that way requires sticking to that forever. It's really depressing, perhaps looked at one way, but the up side? That person looks and feels fit and good.
Humans are evolutionarily designed to put on weight in times of abundance and we live in perpetual caloric abundance. We continue to eat like farm laborers and hunter-gatherers but don't burn the 5000 calories a day that hard laborers burn. We work at computers all day. I think about my slim foremothers, the ones who did laundry every day on washboards and hauled water and ran farms. They didn't sit down for two seconds together. Of course they ate pancakes bacon etc. at breakfast and burned it off by 11 am.
Mmmmm. Pancakes.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
In some cases, the extent of the responsibility that lies with the injured party may not be clear cut. I don't think it is ethical for lawyers and surgeons to argue the toss about whether someone should get free treatment whilst a person's life is ebbing away, and for other reasons wouldn't be happy for the NHS to cease being free at the point of use anyway.
I think our main difference, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in that place of ambiguity I'm erring on the side of not paying for it and you're erring on the side of paying for it. both of us not knowing enough to be able to hammer out details.
Fair enough. I'm not a policy maker, I dont want to hammer out details.
However, I suspect in all of this there is a middle way. I could see, for instance, the NHS covering the preventative costs- free advice from a dietician; free weight monitoring; free cardiac stress-tests; and free diabetes management primary care. Hell, I'd be all for free gym memberships and even tax breaks for riding your bike to work.
that's my inner socialist talking, of course.
But after all of that being available to everyone for free, should the NHS then be responsible for those who have chosen not to take advantage of that for years and years, and therefore offer Gastric Bypass (or whatever)? should they foot the cost for the walking aids needed by someone who is morbidly obese from their own choices and behaviors?
I would say no.
on another note - I just want to add my cheer to what LATA said earlier - YES it takes a shitload of effort to maintain health and fitness. I've had to put tons more focus into it than I ever wanted to - but the LCD in our society is to live a lifestyle that makes one fat. therefore, if I dont want to be fat I need to work hard and go against the grain. it sucks. But there ya go.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I think our main difference, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in that place of ambiguity I'm erring on the side of not paying for it and you're erring on the side of paying for it. both of us not knowing enough to be able to hammer out details.
I think you have it.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
You might be right, the raptor.
Left to Right: Tubby and obese.
At least, what I'm talking about. (but probably both obese)
On the other hand, while raptor may be right that most fat people are medically obese, it's been my experience that what we culturally consider fat is often not the same as what doctors consider fat.
I don't think I'm far off the mark in saying that at the moment a (UK) size 8 is considered aspirational, size 10 OK, and anything over a size 12 is considered fat. A celebrity who 'balloons' to size 12 is ridiculed.
I'm normally a size 14 on the bottom and 16 on top, by current aesthetic standards pretty hefty. Yet no doctor has ever flagged my weight as a potential problem, in fact the only doctor who ever mentioned it gave me a row for starvation dieting (I was anaemic) and a lecture on self-acceptance and body image. I just went through a pregnancy where my blood pressure and sugar levels were measured every other minute, and not once was my weight mentioned as an issue.
So when someone says fat, it's hard to know what they're picturing. Which is why I think we're trying to use obese as code for 'y'know, really, really properly fat'
Mind you, didn't they just change the measuring system so pretty much everybody's obese?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Hugal is a chef, and is very conscientious about not heating things up more than once if they have already been cooked, as it's very dangerous food-poisoning wise.
A restaurant meal may well have been prepared earlier and heated up to order, so if you take it home and heat it up next day, you could be giving yourself a nice plateful of nasties.
I don't see how this can be true.
Food is liable to bacteriological infection when it resides in the "danger zone," 40 deg F/4 deg C - 140 deg F/60 deg C for too long, usually ≥2 hours. (According to USDA.)
This temperature range is the optimum for bacteriological growth.
Reheating a leftover meal to +140F/60C will stop further growth, and could even kill existing bacteria if the food were reheated hot enough (to at least boiling point.) But reheating, in and of itself, can't make food unsafe. Allowing the hot food to cool back down into the "danger zone" would make the food potentially unsafe. Reheated food is usually fine as long as you eat it right after the reheating...
...unless you're talking about eating leftovers that sat for too long in the "danger zone" after their initial heating in the restaurant, in which case you and Hugal are correct.
IME the odds of getting food poisoning from eating leftovers are very, very small (the few times I've gotten sick from restaurant food have been from food eaten at the place.) But everyone has to decide for themselves if their leftover steak au poivre and pommes frittes are worth the risk of hugging the porcelain god the next day.
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
