Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 10:57
Daisymaiz's Avatar
Daisymaiz Daisymaiz is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,985
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 160/136/120 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: Midwest USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
I don't like the idea of legislating what can and can't be sold....advertising tactics are another story......if we leave it to the government to decide what is and isn't healthy, we all know it's going to be bans on butter, bacon, eggs, meat, etc. - cause all that fat will kill you!


Very true-be careful what you wish for.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 11:20
pennink's Avatar
pennink pennink is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,781
 
Plan: Atkins (veteran)
Stats: 321/206.2/160 Female 5'4"
BF:new scale :(
Progress: 71%
Location: Niagara Falls, ON
Default

k, here I come being devil's advocate

WE know that low carb foods are healthy.
The mainstream is stuck on the low fat thing.

here's the deal: both work. They do. I know I've lost a ton on low fat, it's just horrible and tasteless.

the problem, imo, is that people, in general aren't following EITHER. Theyre eating processed foods, fast foods, too much foods... you know?

If the whole food pyramid turned upside down would the obesity crisis completely go away? I doubt it. Ppl would still be exhausted, not plan, and go for the yum factor. People will always be after comfort and ease.

Banning is not going to work. Education is not going to work (it's NOT--people STILL drink, smoke, and have unsafe sex... so education only helps those who want to listen)

HOWEVER, getting the frickin' corn products out of everything just might. Maybe if biofuels become the norm, corn will be too expensive to use in everything, people will lose weight, whole grains will be saved for livestock.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 11:25
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pennink
whole grains will be saved for livestock.


The corps which now own most of agriculture, and chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, and mega junk food producers, are unfortunately for the most part not the companies that own the cows.

The only thing making grain more valuable will do, is drive the beef industry into the ground and make it even more "necessary" for us to buy the junk food. And then the medicine.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 11:25
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,846
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
I don't like the idea of legislating what can and can't be sold....advertising tactics are another story......if we leave it to the government to decide what is and isn't healthy, we all know it's going to be bans on butter, bacon, eggs, meat, etc. - cause all that fat will kill you!


Exactly.

We all know that they're not all up in arms about McD's food being fed to kids because they're concerned about the massive carb overload from the starchy bun, the huge pile of potato in those fries, and the sugary soft drink. They're concerned about the fat in the burger and the fact that the potato is fried.

If McD's suddenly switched gears and happy meals consisted of green salad served with fat free dressing, broiled fish, or broiled skinless chicken breast, topped with fat free mayo, on huge whole grain buns, with baked potatoes the size of footballs on the side (no butter or sour cream!), plus a big glass of fruit juice, they'd be applauding how wonderful McD's was for kids.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 11:50
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neverwhere
YOU as a parent have the responsibility of limiting what your kids see, and shaping their views on what they believe to be true. It's time for parents to stop being mad because society is not raising their children the way they want them to be raised.


Yes, by saying "NO" to big corporations that want to lie to my children on television; I am taking responsibility for shaping my children's views. Taking the opposing viewpoint is and remaining ambivalent, is forfeiting your responsibility to your children and to society as a whole. I love the division you make between "parents" and "society", they are as much a part of the society as everyone else, certainly more so than an abstract entity like a corporation.

Quote:
Like it or not, companies have the right to advertise. They need to, it's their lifeline.


No they do not have a right to advertise in any way they want. We as a society grant corporations the rights we chose to extend them. We don't have to give them any rights whatsoever, they are not citizens, they are constructs which we define. People have been brainwashed into treating corporations as though they are individuals that should enjoy "human" rights, it's a silly model, they are not like us at all.


Quote:
I understand limiting marketing of questionable things to children, to a certain extent.


Too bad, you can't have it both ways. Either they have restrictions on their "rights" or they don't; if you accept that they do, then we as a society get to define those "rights".

Quote:
I personally, have NEVER seen Mcdonalds toys advertised on tv.


That has to be the most incredulous statement so far. Assuming you do own a TV, have you ever watched any children's programming (pbs excluded)?

Quote:
Children dont become obese because they see a stupid toy car or something on tv, and then they magically get overfed Mcdonalds. It's up to the parents to bring them there.


Yep, it's parents who ultimately give in to the begging and whining which was inspired by the promise of the "new" toys, the happy clown, the associated "fun", the "delicious" food. The children who've been barraged by television and their peers to only ever ask for McDonalds, when asked what they'd like to eat. They shouldn't give in, but then they shouldn't have to sit idle and let a giant corporation beguile their children either.

Quote:
A once in a while Mcdonalds kid's meal is NOT going to ruin their health or make them obese.


So, the odd cigarette wouldn't kill them either, what's your point?

Quote:
It's up to the parents to set limits.


Agreed, limits on both their kids consumption and on the companies that would prey on them.

Quote:
And Frankly, you are taking my words out of context when you ask how Liverpool is screwed. Please dont twist my quote to make your point sound superior. I have already stated the point is not about how people NEED Mcdonalds or Happy Meals. I am saying they are screwed if their legistlature is chasing Mcdonalds around, waving their fist at them.


I'm happy for them, they're lucky that their elected officials are working for their constituents against the interests of a corporation.

Quote:
Maybe I am a different sort. I dont like government taking control of every little thing, regardless. I want to make my own decisions what and where to eat.


We aren't talking about them "taking control of every little thing", we are talking about society restricting corporations which hurt the health of children. Anyway, I hope you are a "different sort"; it wouldn't bode well for the future of our society to have too many people that care more about the "rights" of a giant corporation than the well being of their fellow man.

Quote:
As for the clemens thing, I cant really comment on British politics, I dont know a lot of their national issues. But to me, it's government going about things in the wrong way, wasting time on silly gestures, when real solutions or problems are being ignored.

It pisses me off when congress wastes their time on idiot Clemens, when maybe they should be worrying about gun laws, unjust wars, etc. So to me, it is sort of the same thing. THAT is truly making the country a safer place for the children. Not banning a .50 dumbass toy from coming with a small fry and shitty nuggets.


I already agreed on the Clemens thing, and it has nothing to do with this. If banning the use of a "dumbass toy" as an enticement to exploit children, helps make for healthier kids, what would be your objection? Also, go ask how much the "dumbass toy" costs if you don't buy the Happy Meal; it's a lot more than fifty cents. People have speculated that McDonalds actually loses money on some of the Happy Meals, and see it as an investment in longer term brand loyalty - as well as an opportunity to get parents and older kids into the restaurant.

Quote:
And why just mcdonalds? Most fast food places have toys and small menus geared for kids. Im hearing nothing about targeting them....


I agree, like I said, I'd be happy to see all of the advertising of garbage and enticements targeted at children banned. So be it, good riddance, the world will be a much better place for it.

Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:05
neverwhere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Plan:
Stats: //
BF:
Progress:
Default



Ok. If you so say.

ALthough, your fear of the "giant corporations" coming in the middle of the night to gobble up your children is quite worrisome.

I hope you defeat them.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:18
Daisymaiz's Avatar
Daisymaiz Daisymaiz is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,985
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 160/136/120 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: Midwest USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
Agreed, limits on both their kids consumption and on the companies that would prey on them.

By choosing not to patronize them, if they don't like it. That would be far more effective than a law against throwing a toy in the box. McDonald's would voluntarily give up the Happy Meal if it wasn't a good seller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
If banning the use of a "dumbass toy" as an enticement to exploit children, helps make for healthier kids, what would be your objection?

It doesn't help make for healthier kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
Yep, it's parents who ultimately give in to the begging and whining which was inspired by the promise of the "new" toys, the happy clown, the associated "fun", the "delicious" food. The children who've been barraged by television and their peers to only ever ask for McDonalds, when asked what they'd like to eat. They shouldn't give in, but then they shouldn't have to sit idle and let a giant corporation beguile their children either.

They should grow a backbone and stop blaming others, because if it's not a giant corporation it will be something else. How many kids try to get their way (on anything, not just food choices) by saying "but all my friends do it....?" A lot. Some parents give in and some parents don't, big corporation or not.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:37
kyrasdad's Avatar
kyrasdad kyrasdad is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,060
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 338/253/210 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisymaiz
They should grow a backbone and stop blaming others, because if it's not a giant corporation it will be something else. How many kids try to get their way (on anything, not just food choices) by saying "but all my friends do it....?" A lot. Some parents give in and some parents don't, big corporation or not.

Please don't lecture parents, in particular if you aren't one. However, if parents have a responsibility (and nobody is saying they don't) do you also assign one to marketers, or can they advertise anything they wish to children in your mind?

I am not some leftist, anti-corporate zealot. I'm actually a corporate marketer. But to treat a company, an artificial construct as if it has no responsibilities to the larger community while hectoring parents to "grow a backbone" is asinine.

Kids are influenced by marketing, evne if they are Amish and never see television. While I do my best, I cannot magically remove the marketing from the entire universe. I take care of my child, but I should not have to fight Ronald McDonald to do it.

Grow a spine? Seriously?
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:38
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
The conventional wisdom holds that saturated fat, dietary fat and animal foods all make us sick and lead to an early death....sorry, but the *collective* here isn't credible to decide what me and my family can and can't eat.



It's not really the issue here, but I don't know that I totally buy the whole "us vs them" thing. I know many people, who aren't adherents to Low-Carb, and have eaten bacon, butter and beef their entire lives and constantly say things like "if it's bad for you, then how come my father used to eat X, and he lived to 99". Just because the the mass media manages to make it seem like everyone buys into low-carb, low-fat; I don't know that you'd ever have a majority consensus against saturated fat or sizable enough percentage of the population wanting to ban the sale of bacon.

But if the majority decides to take a company to task for using deplorable marketing practices which ultimately harm children, good for them. Why would any of us want to take the side of a clown faced corporation over the health of our children.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:44
chknwing chknwing is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 73
 
Plan: paleo/caveman/neanderthin
Stats: 275.8/240/120 Female 5'1
BF:
Progress: 23%
Default wow....

legislating choice is a very scary thing to us americans; but I guess the thinking is if its not a choice and if we would change the choice options then we cant choose it right? If we are going to change the options then it needs to be done across the board from sodas to pizza and that my friend is not going to happen any time soon. Slopping down burgers and fries with a milkshake is as american as apple pie; and there are a lucky few out there who can do this daily and not suffer any consequences. I dont know what the answer is really here; but I do know that Mcdonald's is not the only culprit here and honeslty I like being able to go through a drive through and getting a big and tasty throw the bun away and munch on the burger and veggies. Yes its true they sell us stuff that we dont need in our food and they alter flavors so that they are so potent that nothing natural seems to compare: there is evil there to be sure; but my thinking here is if stop eating this stuff; then they cant make a profit and therefore have to rethink there strategy. Eating out was always meant to be a once or twice a month thing; it has now become a way of life for most our crazy lives..the revamping is gonna have to be on every level if there is gonna be some real effort to produce food that is healthy, and profitable...ok enuff of my stream of concsiousness here..time to go make so shrimp with butter,,,YUMMMM
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:46
kyrasdad's Avatar
kyrasdad kyrasdad is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,060
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 338/253/210 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
People have been brainwashed into treating corporations as though they are individuals that should enjoy "human" rights, it's a silly model, they are not like us at all.

Yep, it's parents who ultimately give in to the begging and whining which was inspired by the promise of the "new" toys, the happy clown, the associated "fun", the "delicious" food. The children who've been barraged by television and their peers to only ever ask for McDonalds, when asked what they'd like to eat. They shouldn't give in, but then they shouldn't have to sit idle and let a giant corporation beguile their children either.

Two points here that pierce the heart of the matter, that deserve everyone's attention.

NOBODY is asking the government to bullodoze McDonald's. (Well nobody reasonable).

NOBODY is telling McDonald's they can't advertise within the law (and there are already laws governing what they can say, and to who, so this shouldn't be a new concept to anyone). They are saying that it would be helpful if marketing to children were to vanish when in particular it comes from fast and junk food companies during an obesity and diabetes epidemic.

You'd think from some of the shrill and unreasonable reactions to suggestions that we moderate what a company can tell children, that we were ready with the bulldozers at the doors of Burger King and McDonald's.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:55
neverwhere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Plan:
Stats: //
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyrasdad
Please don't lecture parents, in particular if you aren't one. However, if parents have a responsibility (and nobody is saying they don't) do you also assign one to marketers, or can they advertise anything they wish to children in your mind?

I am not some leftist, anti-corporate zealot. I'm actually a corporate marketer. But to treat a company, an artificial construct as if it has no responsibilities to the larger community while hectoring parents to "grow a backbone" is asinine.

Kids are influenced by marketing, evne if they are Amish and never see television. While I do my best, I cannot magically remove the marketing from the entire universe. I take care of my child, but I should not have to fight Ronald McDonald to do it.

Grow a spine? Seriously?


I dont get it though. Why do you think you have to fight Ronald McDOnald?Why cant you just teach your children to just say no? Please, dont take it personal, I am not attacking your parenting skills. I am just trying to figure out why everyone is so scared of "marketing" reaching their children.

Yes, marketing is powerful. You especially must know that. But isn't the teaching and examples you set for your children in the long run much more powerful than some dumb commercials? I know better than to believe commercials for debt solutions or ambulance chaser lawyers you see on daytime tv, for example. I was raised to know better than to follow what you see blindly.

You need to give your children a little more credit. So WHAT if they are enticed by the commercial? You teach them NO.

I dont care how many times you see that clown, if you dont bring your children there, they dont get to eat it. They cant crave or miss something they dont get.

Not everything sold at Mcdonalds is crap food anyway. Is it the best food? No, of course not. But to compare marketing Mcdonalds to selling alchohol or guns is just not the same to me.

Maybe because it's food, I feel differently. And maybe that is wrong. I just don't believe taking away people's choices are the right way to go about things.

Daisy said: By choosing not to patronize them, if they don't like it. That would be far more effective than a law against throwing a toy in the box. McDonald's would voluntarily give up the Happy Meal if it wasn't a good seller.

I agree. I mean no offense to anyone, I just think that people are fooling themselves if they think banning the clown is going to solve the issues. That doesnt even scratch the surface.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 12:59
Daisymaiz's Avatar
Daisymaiz Daisymaiz is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,985
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 160/136/120 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: Midwest USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyrasdad
Please don't lecture parents, in particular if you aren't one. However, if parents have a responsibility (and nobody is saying they don't) do you also assign one to marketers, or can they advertise anything they wish to children in your mind?

I am not some leftist, anti-corporate zealot. I'm actually a corporate marketer. But to treat a company, an artificial construct as if it has no responsibilities to the larger community while hectoring parents to "grow a backbone" is asinine.

Kids are influenced by marketing, evne if they are Amish and never see television. While I do my best, I cannot magically remove the marketing from the entire universe. I take care of my child, but I should not have to fight Ronald McDonald to do it.

Grow a spine? Seriously?


Yes, seriously. I have 3 kids, thanks, and I work with delinquent teenagers, so yeah I realize that kids are influenced by advertising, however I also realize that it is my job to set a good example and teach them to make their own choices. My 7 year old and I have conversations all the time how misleading commercials can be, in particular the ones that make every new toy seem AMAZING and like something she has to have RIGHT NOW. She might still want the toy, but she understands that it isn't going to change her life. She also knows that if I her dad and I say no, that's the answer.

I don't claim to be the perfect parent, no one is. Like I said before, my kids do get fast food on occasion. They would probably eat it every day if we would let them, but we don't. I don't think it's asinine to expect parents to take responsibility and think for themselves instead of blaming advertising and corporations for the way they choose to spend their money.

I want my kids to be healthy and happy, as I'm sure we all do. I do my best too, but I really don't feel as if I am fighting with Ronald McDonald.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 13:04
chknwing chknwing is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 73
 
Plan: paleo/caveman/neanderthin
Stats: 275.8/240/120 Female 5'1
BF:
Progress: 23%
Default never where.....

the truth is that marketing is in most ways more influential than a parent can ever be....its everywhere from the tv we watch to the interenet we access to the streets we walk and it WORKS!! Parents need some support from the companies that take there money. Especially if your a single parent...if you work 18 hour days with two jobs how in the world are you going to know that your kids are eating the way they should be...yea in an ideal world...parenting should have the most influence over the children in the household but the reality is that for most households this is just not the case; no matter how hard the parents may try.

Last edited by chknwing : Tue, Feb-26-08 at 13:05. Reason: cant spell today..lol
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Tue, Feb-26-08, 13:11
neverwhere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
Plan:
Stats: //
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chknwing
the truth is that marketing is in most ways more influential than a parent can ever be....its everywhere from the tv we watch to the interenet we access to the streets we walk and it WORKS!! Parents need some support from the companies that take there money. Especially if your a single parent...if you work 18 hour days with two jobs how in the world are you going to know that your kids are eating the way they should be...yea in an ideal world...parenting should have the most influence over the children in the household but the reality is that for most households this is just not the case; no matter how hard the parents may try.


This is true. I will concede to that point.

But do you guys really feel like advertising fast food to children is this huge problem? Do you really feel like you are "fighting" Ronald McDonald?

I'd love to solve childhood obesity, but I just think this Mcdonalds thing is an empty gesture. I also think it sets a dangerous precedent when governments decide what is healthy or not. Maybe living an "alternative" eating lifestyle has made me paranoid. I dunno.

I'm also curious what people think will happen? I am fascinated to see what happens in Liverpool with the absense of Happy Meals.

I think we are all debating several different issues at once, so some of this is getting convoluted. There was hinting about about how Mcdonalds should be closed, so that sparked the side debate about government deciding what's good and not good. Then we had the original debate about marketing.

I have a feeling this whole thread is much ado about nothing. It won't make a whit of a difference, I fear. I look forward to finding out.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.