Print Story Hot damn.
Educashun
By gzt (Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:41:45 PM EST) gzt, value, meat, squat, bmi, nutrition, insurance (all tags)
I'm going to put in a few comments about some articles and stuff and things.


So I found out I can still find ways to push myself until my elbow heals. Front squats are fine in place of back squats. Turns out I can indeed go heavy on the press, probably the bench press as well. Deadlifts and deadlift variants also work fine - which I will have to find ways to work hard on since I'm not doing back squats (that is to say, work hard on without overworking my lower back). Back squats (the awkward position, even though it shouldn't be bearing weight) and things like cleans/snatches (catching them on the way down) seem to be the only things that irritate my elbow.

Health insurance: http://www.guernicamag.com/spotlight/1207/the_last_temptation_of_wendell/ I thought it was an interesting article. I won't comment too heavily. I work for a large insurance company, but we're not a for-profit.

Nutrition: http://www.csicop.org/si/2009-03/spector.html

In summary, the critics of nutritional research and practice suggest that much nutritional research and practice is, to paraphrase Thomas Hardy, science’s laughingstock, for two reasons: much of the research, especially EOS, is pseudoscientific for the reasons I have discussed and second, many practitioners and commercial interests do not readily acknowledge the truth.
Also stolen from aldaily. Nothing terribly surprising here. This is also true, by the way, of exercise science. I figure I can survive on the following advice: eat breakfast, eat protein in every meal, eat fiber in every meal, try to eat real foods, try to avoid sugar. Keep in mind, I'm just some guy with a BMI of approximately 30 and I don't have any intention of going much below that any time soon (in fact, I'd like to gain weight). You shouldn't pay any attention to any of my advice.

Which reminds me of this: http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/why-vegetarians-are-eating-meat I eat meat. Quite a lot of it, really. I dislike the idea of factory farming for meat for all the typical reasons and I also have some dislike for industrial agriculture for all the typical reasons. I'm such a typical hipster. But the problem is that it's all well and good to have these ideals, but having ground beef available for $1.99/# and cheap vegetables in the winter - not to mention relatively cheap flour - is far better than the alternative in centuries past: meat as an expensive luxury, all food (including grain) as an expensive staple. I'm afraid that "eating ethically" or whatever - organic, free-range, etc - is more an expression of my bourgeois decadence - or perhaps Bourdieu's distinction - than anything else. Of course, it's not like I'm taking - right now - the money I save when I don't eat organic and using it for good purposes... I revisit this idea occasionally. I suppose if I decided it really were important, well, damn the torpedos, I'd do what it takes to eat well, even if it meant eschewing meat or reserving it for special occasions.

Which brings up this: You are your behavior, economically-speaking, and you can see what really matters by how you allocate your limited resources. It's quite literally what you "value".

Well, not only economically-speaking.

< a diary for me, too! | Query the Hussy: NAS Opinions >
Hot damn. | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
don't see many by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:03:13 PM EST
poor folks as vegetarians.. or vegans.. or "organic only" types..

Eating as such is purely in the provenance of the well-to-do. Money to buy the food, time to cook it, etc.


counterpoint by gzt (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:32:48 PM EST
I do know some people who, while not vegetarian, cut down significantly on their meat consumption and rely more on beans, grains, etc because they may be a better calorie per dollar investment. Any meat purchased is typically cheap ground beef or for a special occasion. However, some of the examples are one-income families, so there may be time available even if there isn't money.

Organic, yeah, that's impossible without some disposable income.

Though I'm not totally convinced by the math on beans vs. meat. 1# of ground beef is about 1200 calories. Keep the fat in, trust me, it'll go farther and be more filling. 1# of chicken breast without the skin is about 800 (keep the skin and it'll be a better deal). These are typically loss leaders at the store. You might not be able to find them on sale all the time, but you shouldn't pay too much for them. I don't recall what I pay for plant protein sources, but I can't imagine I'd do much better. I can sometimes find eggs by the dozen at $.75 - which translates to 800 good calories for less than a dollar. Anyway.

[ Parent ]
Maybe you want to look at by Herring (4.00 / 2) #3 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:43:54 PM EST
where the agricultural subsidies go - broccoli or beef?

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
right by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 04:29:25 PM EST
gzt makes the classic mistake of blaming himself ("hipster") rather than government policy and profit oriented industrial ag.

"Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in financial crises." -Krugman

[ Parent ]
Here, maybe. by ni (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:58:32 PM EST
See most of the Indian subcontinent for a different point of view.


"These days it seems like sometimes dreams of Italian hyper-gonadism are all a man's got to keep him going." -- CRwM
[ Parent ]
When I was poorest... by toxicfur (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 09:45:02 PM EST
I never bought meat. This is when I was making ~12-13K, working at restaurants. I would occasionally eat meat at work, when it was free or significantly reduced, but I never bought meat. It was more important to me to spend my limited food budget on stuff that would actually make a balanced and healthy diet.
--
The amount of suck that you can put up with can be mind-boggling, but it only really hits you when it then ceases to suck. -- Kellnerin
[ Parent ]
caloric requirements by gzt (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:21:39 AM EST
However, you're a woman. Men require at least 50% more calories, so, at that same income, they need to start thinking about calories per dollar rather than balance. At least, that's what I thought when my income was $1K/month.

[ Parent ]
Funny, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:44:53 PM EST
all the numbers I've seen say 25% more for men.

[ Parent ]
okay, I was running off-the-cuff numbers by gzt (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:54:48 PM EST
I was thinking 1600-1800 for women and 2400 for men (~50%). The first result on google was 2000 and 2500 (25%). Fair enough.

[ Parent ]
I really should have by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:29:41 AM EST
removed the generic vegetarian option, as many have pointed out.. Beans/rice is a huge staple across the world..

I should stick with the "organics", those that have the money can rhapsodize/ponder about the ethics of farming, chemicals, how animals are raised etc.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:21:03 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



Wandering thoughts. by gzt (4.00 / 2) #6 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 03:42:14 PM EST
Perhaps I ought to take time to compose.

But, yes, I just can't be fucked. There are billions of things I have some marginal concern about but don't rise to the level that I care enough to throw money at it. Organic produce. Eating grass-fed beef instead of factory-produced beef. Orphanages in Ukraine. AIDS relief in Uganda. There are other things I care about, at some level, that I just can't be fucked to spend any effort on. Possibly vegetarianism. My job, for sure. There are a lot of things I care about enough to throw money and effort at. I won't list them.

But it makes me wonder whether, if I decided to start eating "ethically" - I don't care so much about the magazine article's assertions about vegetarians starting to eat meat - that would be an illustration of real concern about my place in the larger world or an illustration of how I am playing my role as a 25-35-yr-old middle-class well-educated urbanite who is supposed to "care" about the world and show it by conspicuous consumption.

Rent-seeking: yes. But, on the other hand, I think it's good for the public to have "cheap" meat and milk. And cheap produce. If it takes government intervention, it takes government intervention. Just like insurance, agricultural policy is a tricky and hairy beast. I mean, food is like nature's horribly regressive tax, in a certain sense.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 04:02:33 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Well... by ni (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:53:25 AM EST
But it makes me wonder whether, if I decided to start eating "ethically" - I don't care so much about the magazine article's assertions about vegetarians starting to eat meat - that would be an illustration of real concern about my place in the larger world or an illustration of how I am playing my role as a 25-35-yr-old middle-class well-educated urbanite who is supposed to "care" about the world and show it by conspicuous consumption.

I'm really sympathetic to this in most cases, but you seem to ignore a perfect reasonable option here: maybe, tragically, doing the right thing is a privilege of the wealthy, and maybe this doesn't make it any less the right thing to do. Maybe the world just sort of sucks that way.


"These days it seems like sometimes dreams of Italian hyper-gonadism are all a man's got to keep him going." -- CRwM

[ Parent ]
BMI is great for the average joe by lm (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 07:07:44 PM EST
Athletes, body builders, and other folks who don't have average builds have no reason to pay attention to BMI.

Get thee to a displacement pool.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
I did the math... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 10:00:04 AM EST
...and, assuming a very conservative 25% body fat, I'd have to lose a stone of lean mass to get to a BMI of 25 with a quite ripped 10% body fat. If I currently have a more realistic 20% body fat, I'd have to lose about as much lean body mass as fat to get to that point. But I don't really care. I'm not planning on losing any weight - lean or fat - in the near future.

[ Parent ]
Hot damn. | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback