For crying out loud, why eat fruits and vegetables?

Post Reply New Topic

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yes, but how many calories do they contain? How would it fit into, say, a 2000 calorie diet?



I haven't actually argued that the higher classes are actually being oppressive on this matter, but I do speculate it. If they won't tell us what fruits and vegetables contain that vitamins and bread don't, and why those nutrients are so important, then to people like me, they will be less persuasive than they are annoying.

Crucial to the idea that fruits and vegetables are a mere fitness display is not that the lower classes cannot buy them, but that they cost so much that they don't want to. This is really what I've been saying all along about their 'inability to afford' them: they just put too big a dent in their budgets.

If all this is the case, then the rich must love this "Eat Your Fruits and Vegetables" idea, as it gives them reason to look superior and wise in relation to the 'fools' below them on the social ladder, who may have health problems not because of their diets but because of their genes and social upbringing. Given how obnoxiously lacking in empathy they would be, it might take some mysterious kindergarten psychology just to convince them that we are conscious. What else should we use on mean people?

A lot of people might laugh at this idea that fruits and vegetables aren't really that essential, and I have a feeling that this is herd mentality and blind faith at work, together with a cocky attitude toward the lower classes as described above. When people become smarter over the years, they might begin to realize the importance of rational argument in dietary matters.



Possibly because they find such activities more rewarding than people who are perceived to have worse genes. Do you want to read my poem, If God Were a Bully?

Regardless of who is health conscious, everyone is conscious.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How awful it is that they slaughter animals... e-ven-though-they-might-be-con-scious...

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm only a vegetarian, but I do drink soymilk.

Maybe we can weaken the dairy economy enough to the point that vegan foods will become more popular.

You eat them, that's how it fits into a 2000 calorie diet. What are you trying to suggest? That people *actually* pay attention to that nonsense?


Umm... you can get them for a dollar or less per can though, and they come with a number of fast food items, which are generally consumed by the poorer classes as well. This includes hamburgers and tacos, along with coming as relatively popular sides for meals such as fried chicken dinners, and also being available as pizza toppings. I mean, it still sounds absurd.


But, it's relatively stupid that they would invent an entire enterprise just to claim that vegetables are healthy when very few people get to see what they eat. I mean, the mythology behind the suit, and the nature of a gym are both much better, heck, I would bet that the balance of vitamin consumption favors the rich much much more than the balance of vegetable consumption does, so why not just campaign upon esoteric vitamins rather than vegetables, a food that people have been eating for centuries, and that people still eat today amongst all classes?


Umm.... ok? I don't think most people really care either way. Dietary matters are usually decided by taste in those who are doing well, calories by those seeking to lose weight, and doctors by those with health issues, rarely does a nutritionist approach take much precedent among the average person.


Ok... but it is likely significantly cultural, and little of it *really* matters. I mean, every group considers it's ways better and more rational.

Ok....

Look, I'll cut this short, the idea seems either overblown or just absurd. I mean, I consider calorie counting, veggie counting, or any other counting of this sort to be absurd unless recommended by some medical figure to deal with some specific pre-existing problem. I think a lot of people are the same way, and I think that the "health-conscious rich" are not so much seen as a good mainstream as they are an absurd group to be stereotyped in various comedies. I do not think that the entire world is run by some grand conspiracy to favor the rich for having good genes.

Ive read that the city of Detroit is like this. 130 square miles and no large grocery stores. Everyone either has to head to the suburbs or buy from local corner stores with a small selection. Theyve often had trouble with fresh meat so I can imagine veg is in the same boat.

Awesomelyglorious, the explanation for fruits and vegetables as a costly fitness indicator lies in a subject called sexual selection, which I have studied and written an essay about (you can find it here).

Notice the downward arrows above the peacock tail symbols. In our case, they represent monetary cost.

Because people ask on dates "how many vegetables do you eat?"? I mean, really, I think they are more likely to not be attracted to a person on the basis of clothing, and actual income than whether that person on that income eats the right number of veggies or picks vitamins or anything like that.

Now, I recognize how these mating signals work, but veggies??? Seriously? I mean, there are better, stronger, and more easily accessible measures of financial health than vegetable eating. Not only that, but veggies are relatively cheap compared to cars, to clothing, to just about any other metric of comparison that would be used.

The theory just seems nonsensical.

You are correct that signals of fitness aren't the entire determining bases of attraction in a relationship. However, they are believed to play at least a minor role.

And I want to emphasize that I care very deeply about the romantically unsuccessful, and I will not just stand by and watch their feelings get hurt.

Last edited by MikeH106 on 19 Apr 2009, 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But, actually being thin, and muscular, and having no notable chronic illnesses is a better signal than eating veggies. Heck, taking the vitamins is probably a better signal than the veggies, as vitamins show health-consciousness, which would be taken as most as a better sign of long-term health than liking carrots. So, I really don't see how this is a great signal, as I don't think there are good ways to display eating vegetables in a sensible manner, I don't think "eat vegetables" is considered on the top of dating advice, and heck, joining a religion will probably help you more than eating some plant.

You like to throw out the term "fallacy" quite a bit. I don't think you actually understand what you're referring to much of the time.

Also, I don't get the impression from your essay that you really are that informed on evolutionary biology.

It is quite simple, my dear friend, that a fallacy is a rule of inference that does not always produce true statements from other true statements.

If you want an exploitation theory, you might consider the possibility that the food counterfitting industry is trying to maximize their profits by selling empty calories to the poor. A banana or kiwi or some other piece of fruit costs less than a candy bar. Economically, I don't understand paying a dollar or two for a cup of sugar water, but plenty of people (including many poor people) seem to be happy to spend their money on soda or 'sports beverages' (kool-aid and a pinch of sodium for 'electrolytes').

If cost per calorie is your main concern, a large tin of lard may seem to offer good value. But there are thousands of studies showing that too much saturated fat increases the risk for heart attacks and other diseases. Better to go with generic vegetable oil; better yet to go with olive oil. Is olive oil more expensive? Yes. But there are a variety of modest priced options that are much healthier than the cheapest thing on the shelf.

Epidemiological studies repeatedly show that eating a diet rich in fruits and veggies is associated with reduced risk of many diseases - in some cases, there is evidence that a single species or plant family has an effect, or a single chemical or class of chemicals is responsible. But usually not.

One issue I take with your theories is the assumption that we understand human nutrition, and can reduce it to a relatively small number of macro-nutritional factors (protein, carbs, a few vitamins, etc). How does your conception of nutrition accommodate magnesium, potassium, lycopene, anthocyanins, quercetin, and other such chemicals? How do you propose we get them, other than a diet rich in fruits and veggies?? If there were only one factor lacking in a meat/wheat/sugar diet, a pill might make sense. But when there are hundreds or thousands of factors lacking, pills become more expensive and ultimately cannot duplicate what we evolved to eat and need.

Here is a brief smattering of studies published in 2009 - read these, and few hundred others, and your questions will be answered.

Dietary Intake of Fruits and Vegetables Improves Microvascular Function in Hypertensive Subjects in a Dose-Dependent Manner.
Greater vegetable and fruit intake is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among Chinese women.
Flavonoids Intake and Risk of Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis.
A systematic review of the effect of diet on prostate cancer prevention and treatment.
Fruit, vegetables, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.
Dietary carotenoids and the risk of invasive breast cancer.
Food groups and renal cell carcinoma: results from a case-control study.
Dietary fiber and fiber-rich food intake in relation to risk of stroke in male smokers.
Antihypertensive effects of the flavonoid quercetin.
Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
The relationship between dietary energy density and energy intake.
Dietary patterns, cardiovascular risk factors and C-reactive protein in a healthy Italian population.
Effects of chronic and acute consumption of fruit- and vegetable-puree-based drinks on vasodilation and risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
Indonesian women of childbearing age are at greater risk of clinical vitamin A deficiency in families that spend more on rice and less on fruits/vegetables.
Contents of phytosterols in vegetables and fruits commonly consumed in China.
Dietary patterns and risk of oral cancer: A factor analysis study in Jakarta population Indonesia.
Fruit and vegetable consumption and its relation to markers of inflammation and oxidative stress in adolescents.
Examination of relation between nutrient components and fruits: Biplot approach.
Dietary fiber and stomach cancer risk: a case-control study from Italy.
When nutrition interacts with osteoblast function: molecular mechanisms of polyphenols.
Total diet study on certain nutrients in Shanxi regions with a high incidence of birth defects.
Dietary patterns in infancy and cognitive and neuropsychological function in childhood.
Intake of plant foods and associated nutrients in prostate cancer risk.