Fast-Food Logos Burned Into Pleasure Center of Children's Brains

bbianca127 writes "A study has found that fast-food logos are branded into the minds of children at an early age, perhaps fueling the U.S.'s obesity epidemic. The study showed children 60 logos from popular food brands and 60 logos from popular non-food brands. Researchers found that, when shown images of fast-food brands, the parts of kids' brains linked with pleasure and appetite lit up. This is concerning because marketers tap into those portions of the brain long before children develop self-control, and most foods marketed to kids are high in calories, sugar, sodium, and fat."

Comments

Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always thought that exposure to fast food at an early age (perhaps due to mom and dad being perennially short of time to cook) implants a memory into kids of the taste of greasy fast food that sticks with them forever. Don't feed them this glop.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, maybe it was the glop that their parents made them eat at home that so enhanced the experience of the crap they got when they went out to McD's, Burger King, whatnot.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Genda]

Its neither. We are evolutionary survival machines, look at the things that our ancestors did to survive. They sought sugars, salts, protein and fat. Any combination of those things is literally guaranteed to addictive to a human being. We are bred literally to respond to that combination. So what do fast food restaurants do, they server us huge helpings of sugar, salt, protein and fat. These things have survival value. Sadly, they are also killing us. The ugly part is that people are getting rich pulling the trigger, knowing full well its a trigger.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[pinkushun]

Yup, those sugary and fatty foods provided sustenance for those periods when food was scarcer, when your body relies on fatty deposits.

Super markets eliminated the need to hunt for food interspersed with periods of shortages, but the latent craving for those sugary, fatty treats still remained.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, it's not fast food. WhatEVER kids eat at an early age, that's why they'll enjoy for the rest of their lives. It's called "human culture". Fast food's got nothing to do with it.

Liking fast food is essentially chemistry. Science (yay, science!) has basically figured out what tastes good on the human taste bud. Fast food supplies this. Sure, you gourmands out there will choke and puke at the thought of fast food, but that is purely social conditioning (the kind that intelligent people insist they're too smart to fall for). Take someone with no preconceptions, say a barbarian from a pre-modern society, and serve them two meals: one of a Big Mac and the other Thai-Burmese-Argentinian fusion or whatever is considered haute cuisine these days, and the barbie will pick the Big Mac every time.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it should be forbidden to sell that stuff or at least advertise it. Kids are not allowed to drink alcohol so why are they allowed to eat food only based on these triggers. Beside that, they do not learn the wide variety of tastes food can have and they loose one portion of culture. Also they trained that eating is only for resupply of calories and other stuff relevant for the metabolism. However, that is normally called feeding. Humans developed culture and dishes and the art of eating them is part of the culture.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] but that is purely social conditioning (the kind that intelligent people insist they're too smart to fall for).

This goes for a lot of things. For example, people who think they're too smart to fall for scams can be conned extremely easily with certain methods. They think they're inherently exempt from suffering whatever ___ is, and so don't even put up defenses.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jandersen]

I agree, but I think it is a wider issue than that. I remember, when growing up, I was always told to "eat up" and not waste food, even when I genuinely felt that I didn't want to eat more. This makes sense, of course, if you can't be sure when the next meal will be around, but it teaches us at an early age to override the signal to stop eating. That, in combination with the way we serve food in the West: a whole meal on a large plate, means that it is very easy to develop a habit of overeating.

Perhaps we should learn from the Chinese: you put all the dishes in the middle of the table and eat out of small bowls; and you only take a little bit at a time, so you don't have to sit there, being full with half a meal on your plate, feeling that you must finish. And of course, the Chinese tend to integrate the leftovers in the next meal, so there is less food wasted overall.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always thought that exposure to fast food at an early age (perhaps due to mom and dad being perennially short of time to cook) implants a memory into kids of the taste of greasy fast food that sticks with them forever. Don't feed them this glop.

Exactly. My Seven year old has NEVER eaten McDonalds or KFC. He once went to a birthday party at Burger King and still speaks about how horrible the food was. He has eaten Subway periodically and likes food from local non-chain restaurants but we have made a deliberate effort not to feed him this junk.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is all them delicious Apple a day products that lead them to the doctors!

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Taste enhancer additives are the culprit. I remember when i was a kid, the one potato chips which was made by virtually a monopoly company in my (communist then) country tasted ... ordinary: salt, oil, crisp potato. Then, much later, a new company came with Western technology and it tasted ... like heaven! I always liked chips, but while 50 grams bag of old chips was more then I could eat alone, I couldn't satiate myself even with 200 grams of this new chips. The difference was, of course, the "secret" (not really ... just in small print) additive ingredient in the latter.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[trout007]

You have it backwards.

There were and are all sorts of restaurants. The consumers have CHOSEN to spend their money at places that serve food they like.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Nothing wrong with a whole meal on a plate. When I grew up, we were served a reasonably sized meal on a plate (and got told to eat up), ensuring we got the nutrition we needed. Still hungry? Go for seconds. But in most cases the first serving was sufficient for us. The important thing is to size the servings right. br>
Apparently that's a good way to lose some weight too: eat what you eat normally (provided you are already on a more or less proper diet), just cook a bit less of it. Works well enough in my case, and it beats the Chinese way where people tend to keep snacking on what's on the table until they are stuffed.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[somersault]

Humans developed culture and dishes and the art of eating them is part of the culture.

It's the bullshit "culture" that is causing these problems, glorifying cakes and candy. Sugar is added in insane amounts to so many foods these days, and you're considered weird if we don't have a slice of birthday cake every single time it's someone's birthday, etc..

Diet drinks also cause metabolism problems, so people who actually try to go on a "diet" just make things worse.

I generally try to avoid foods with added sugars. I don't care much about fat content. Low fat stuff is just is a red herring because it usually has crazy amounts of sugar. I prefer just eating food that hasn't had the fat processed out etc.

Fast food places are actually okay if you skip the fizzy drinks and supersizing your fries. I just get a BIG burger and water when I go to Burger King.

Of course, getting a little exercise helps too.

And as someone else pointed out, our bodies have actually evolved to cope with times of scarcity combined with large feeds when hunters bring in food. I think more study needs to be done into the biological changes that occur when we fast, they may actually be beneficial.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope. I once took a 70 year old peasant farmer from China to KFC and he freaking loved it. The man had never been to a restaurant in his life. Seriously, his village was freaking medieval. Where do you get such bizarre ideas?

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jandersen]

Well, maybe you are one of the lucky ones whose "stop-signal" (for lack of a better word) works; apparently there is a sizeable proportion of people for whom this isn't the case - the signal is too weak, and too easy to ignore.

Personally, I find it much easier to stop when I eat slowly; something that is much more likely with Chinese food, in my experience. It has to be added that my wife is Chinese, so I probably eat a more typical Chinese diet rather than the stuff you get in restaurants, which tends to be heavy on fat and salt (and sometimes sugar as well). Chopsticks are just not as high-throughput as a fork or spoon.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jimshatt]

Hm, I'd say peasants from China are ESPECIALLY hardened against environmental junk.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

i dunno. whenever i go long periods without fast food, the first time i have it again, i'm disgusted by the flavor, yet something still finds it addictive after that. the longer i go, the easier it is to avoid, yet once i have it again, it's difficult to get the streak going again.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[thomasw_lrd]

Or we could just stop letting people blame their problems on others. Yeah, I'm fat. I know why I'm fat, I eat too much food. Do I care, yes. Enough to do anything about it, no. At some point every person has to take responsibility for their own choices.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Ash Vince]

Ya, it's mental. Nobody would ever think HFCS is behind any of this. Our secret plan rolls on!

You jest but I think it is a large part of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

Crap like that is stuff that has been recently invented to help the food industry. It is not entirely natural so is not something our bodies have evolved to deal with over time. It does however trigger the correct taste bud response as that was a large part of the criteria in its design. It was also designed to be cheap as chips to produce, help american corn production and avoid US dependence on importing sugar although I have no idea why the US can't just grow it's own sugar like everyone else. There must be some reason why corn is easier to grow than sugar but I am not a farmer.

The reality of this stuff and many other recent inventions by the food industry is that they are not tested to the level that would be needed to measure their long term effects. We might test them to make sure they are not poisonous but that only means it's safe to consume on the level we now do. Almost every food factory in the US now uses a process based on things like HFCS as a replacement for sugar. This means we consume tons of the stuff each year whereas our grand parents would never have consumed it at all.

Interestingly most of Europe never adopted HFCS so we use sugar for most industrial food production and we don't have the same obesity problem. That is far from conclusive evidence though but I do think that HFCS is just one of many things that the US food industry adopted that are contributing.

There are also no doubt other causes some of which are social issues. Things like football in the US where short sprints and bulk are more important than aerobic fitness and stamina are also a big factor.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt your first assertion. As a kid, I wouldn't have touched most of what I like, flavorwise, today.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[der_pinchy]

so your saying caucasians are fatties because of there culture?

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jythie]

Unfortunately, avoiding such things is getting harder and harder, esp at low end grocery stores. With my job in peril I switched from a mid-range grocery store to a 'budget' one and was amazed at how hard it was to find any food that didn't have lots of fat and sugar added. Such things simply were not stocked.... I still have to go to the mid-range store to get things like, for instance, peanutbutter of all things.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Mindcontrolled]

It's purely my anecdote, but I doubt that. I grew up with good old home-style bohemian cuisine. Absurdly heavy roux-based sauces to be sucked up by spongy ServiettenknÃdel. Sorry, grandma, I won't touch that crap with a ten foot pole today. Classic French, general Mediterranean and an assortment of Thai, Vietnamese and Japanese dishes are on my table these days.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jythie]

On the other hand, I think people get really uncomfortable with the idea that advertizing has the impact it does.. the idea makes them feel less in control of their lives so they underestimate how much other forces actually do sway them. We like to think we are above influence, but we are not, and marketers know we are not.

This does not absolve us from personal responsibility, but it does mean we need to be more realistic about what effects us so we can take responsibility by working to limit or remove those influences.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can someone honestly believe this? Do you absolutely love everything that your parents served you when you were a child? No, you will like some (enough that you don't starve at least) and hate some (ugh, lutefisk). Then you will encounter more types of food as you age, and your tastes will also shift a little in the process.
If you reproduce ("if" since this is Slashdot), you will attempt to feed your children based on your own likes, your ability to afford what you like, and a bit of leftover guilt from all those people telling you that stuff that tastes horrible is good for you.

There are some partial exceptions, in locations where the only food resources are all very similar, people will be very unwilling to try anything very different. I have seen this in areas where the definition of "spicy food" is that there was a green bell pepper in it somewhere.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[somersault]

Well, the only fats that have been clinically shown to be unhealthy are trans-fats, so you don't really need to worry about fat content too much, more sugar content. Fat takes longer to digest and leaves you feeling satisfied, sugar gives you a rush and a crash which mean you're more likely to crave more food and eat more, etc.. but yeah, cheap processed foods are often very calorie dense.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[tibit]

This is mental. HFCS is, metabolically, no better and no worse than cane sugar or fructose you get from fruits. Stop being silly. The idea that Europe's imaginary non-adoption of HFCS and reliance on cane sugar makes it not have "the same obesity problem" (when it does, in fact), is completely uninformed. Cane sugar and HFCS are equivalents. The imaginary lack of obesity would be due to maintaining a healthy calorie intake and running after public transportation, not because they chose a particular kind of sugar that ends up as the same thing once it reaches the bloodstream. The reason that I say you imagine Europe to lack the obesity problem is because it's true. Europe has obesity problem, just a bit delayed vs. the U.S. My family has doctors, and they see kids, and it's like what one would see in the U.S. 20-30 years ago. As more people in Europe switch to driving, the obesity can't but become worse. Use of public transport usually gives you a very healthy amount of exercise, don't discount that.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[tibit]

Well, my 8 y.o. does get to go to Wendys once in a while, but she ate at McDonalds only once and hated it too. I hate McD too, it's just some seriously bad tasting food. You can eat pretty healthy at Wendys. KFC is damn near useless, it's like eating salt with food, not the other way round. McD and KFC is off the list for us.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forever? No way. I prized fast food when I was a kid and now I can't stand the stuff. Tastes change.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[kilfarsnar]

You have it backwards.

There were and are all sorts of restaurants. The consumers have CHOSEN to spend their money at places that serve food they like.

Maybe. Or maybe they have chosen to spend their money at places that are fast and cheap. A lot of people in this country, in a number of areas in their lives, make choices because they have to, not because they want to.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really now what you are talking about, fast food is all about three things:

1)Being fast. So you could continue working,talking to your friends, whatever.

2)Being as cheap as possible.

3)Being as addictive as possible, this basically means adding as much sugar as possible, better if dissolved in water(coke). Instant peak of sugar in blood with enormous desire to eat more sugar later, once the emergency response insulin control system overshoots(as you are adding so much sugar in such small amounts of time).

Your Thai Burnamese comment means you had never eaten great food.

(My family is from Spain and France, my parents loved to cook, and so do I with my wife).

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, recently I was working in a very remote location, where there were no fast food chains in a 10-mile radius. I had to stop eating fast food and bring my own lunch practically daily (the cafeteria meals were terrible, too); additionally, as an experiment, I avoided eating it during the weekends.

Well, what do you know, after 4-5 months, I suddenly went back to KFC and just couldn't finish my plate: the thing tasted horribly, and what little I ate caused me gases and general gastric discomfort. And I know it wasn't food poisoning or a bad cook, because shortly after that I went to BK, and had the same terrible experience after eating. And now I've reached a point where I cannot drink a whole can of Coke without feeling like a balloon.

It surprises me how easily our bodies can adapt to shitty environments, awful conditions... and fast food chains.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Mikawo]

WhatEVER kids eat at an early age, that's why they'll enjoy for the rest of their lives.

Not true. I used to be fed fish when I was a kid, but I practically hate it now. Putting any in my mouth makes me feel like vomitting.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Dodgy G33za]

Buy some unsalted roasted peanuts, or raw peanuts and roast yourself. Blend very well. The result should be peanut butter with no sugar, salt or oils. It isn't rocket science.

And if you are worried about money, grow some veggies. You can make a small amount of land do a lot if you grow potatoes, carrots, onions etc. Even herbs, chillies, peppers on a window sill or balcony if you are living in a vertically stacked urban environment (names vary by country).

I am far more worried by the difficulty in getting basic ingredients to make foods from, such as bakers flour and unhomogenised milk.

My philosophy. Eat as close to nature as you can. Less opportunity for corporations to a) fuck it up and b) make a profit.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not fast food. WhatEVER kids eat at an early age, that's why they'll enjoy for the rest of their lives. It's called "human culture". Fast food's got nothing to do with it.

Liking fast food is essentially chemistry. Science (yay, science!) has basically figured out what tastes good on the human taste bud. Fast food supplies this. Sure, you gourmands out there will choke and puke at the thought of fast food, but that is purely social conditioning (the kind that intelligent people insist they're too smart to fall for). Take someone with no preconceptions, say a barbarian from a pre-modern society, and serve them two meals: one of a Big Mac and the other Thai-Burmese-Argentinian fusion or whatever is considered haute cuisine these days, and the barbie will pick the Big Mac every time.

What a load of crap.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[smellotron]

we need to be more realistic about what effects us so we can take responsibility by working to limit or remove those influences.

I was effected by my mother and father.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[ultranova]

At some point every person has to take responsibility for their own choices.

Strangely, the people advocating this often don't seem to think it extends to the choice of persuading others to follow an unwise course of action in order to benefit at their expense. Whether this is because they mistake practical problems - such as obesity - as moral ones - and have a primarily punishment-oriented morality, so obesity can be seen as a punishment for gluttony, requiring no action on the condemners part to enforce, thus appealing to their own sloth - or because they dream of one day being the deceiver is an open question.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Whaaaat? A greeting in China translates to "have you eaten yet?" This is a throwback to the days when there wasn't enough food to go around, due to the pure socialist economic system in place at the time. You bet moms tell their kids to eat up. Honestly, I remember my Mom telling me to eat up for the nutritional value of the food, the waste part was secondary. She thought lima beans were particularly good for me...ugh. Overeating? What, we don't have control over what gets put on the plate in the first place?

Oh, and let's not worship the Chinese way, OK? You're putting chopsticks to your lips and then putting them back in the communal bowls. The Chinese have an idiom that translates as "blind worship of foreign cultures" and there's definitely a part of our society that does this, especially when it comes to Eastern cultures. Chinese tattoos and such. Chinese love to waste food at meals. It shows you're prosperous and can afford enough food. Again, an overreaction to the bad old days under real socialism.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[smellotron]

Take someone with no preconceptions, say a barbarian from a pre-modern society, and serve them two meals: one of a Big Mac and the other Thai-Burmese-Argentinian fusion or whatever is considered haute cuisine these days, and the barbie will pick the Big Mac every time.

To further emphasize the impact of marketing on our lives, my mind immediately jumped to the Capital One barbarians (vikings?) eating the Big Macs, and the Geico cavemen eating the fusion. Yeah, preconceptions indeed.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Dodgy G33za]

The problem is that people "like" it because it has been engineered that way. Imagine the design brief:

1) make the food as addictive as possible
2) make it as cheaply as possible

And you get trans-fats, high fructose corn syrup, parmoline (aka tree lard) and all the other nasty things the food industry has come up with to make their business as profitable as possible.

The problem with the average slashdot denizen is that they give far too much credit to the intelligence of the target audience of this crap. The truth is that half of them are too uneducated to know better (which is a problem with our society), and the other half are too interested in other things (which is a problem with other marketing).

Now I know many on this site love the idea of a free market, but an unfettered market is not allowed in any country, for a very good reason.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[bobbied]

This "HFCS is bad" hype is wearing thin.. :)

HFCS is just sugar, Fructose to be exact. Same sugars you get in a lot of fruit and some other plant based sugars. There is NOTHING specifically bad about HFCS that's not similar to other digestible sugars like sucrose from sugar cane.

Having an excessive intake of sugar, HFCS based or otherwise, is the problem, not HFCS consumption.

The American use of HFCS is based mostly in cost considerations. The importation of sugar into the US is highly taxed and tightly controlled in an effort to protect a domestic sugar industry. Sugar is *really* expensive as a result compared to sugar prices in the rest of the world which drives up domestic use of HFCS which is cheap.

As to the rest of your post, like comparing versions of "football"... Clearly the European and US games known as "football" are very different but trying to make cultural and dietary distinctions is pretty amusing to me.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[SScorpio]

He did tell me he loves his daily bear claw and double mocha frap from Starbucks.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Dodgy G33za]

I went to the US once, and driving out of Omaha all I saw was suburb after suburb of 'chains'. Why anyone would even think of pulling off the highway to go to a donut outlet is beyond me.

Here in Australia, 'normal' restaurants and cafes are the norm, and long may that be the case.

Fight it guys. Fight it with every once of your spirit. I grew up thinking Americans believed in freedom. But what I see from your culture is homogenisation and the rule of the bland. Is that really what you want?

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Football is our most popular sport, but most kids here play soccer.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[operagost]

Thanks for proposing to surrender a few more of our freedoms to the state. Drinking too much alcohol is bad for adults too, so how about beer limits?

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[operagost]

I'm pretty sure peanuts come with their own oil. I also believe that "peanut butter" without a little molasses in it isn't peanut butter, but that's just me.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[operagost]

No, that's just all you see. Drive up I-81 in the eastern US and you see diners and family restaurants at every other exit. It's not just chains.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[operagost]

You haven't had chips fried properly with good potatoes. It's not a stretch for me to speculate that, being you were in a communist country where quality of life was not valued by the state. And I'm curious: what was the "secret" ingredient?

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[artfulshrapnel]

I think he's talking about the families where they'd serve too much food, like giving a child adult-sized portions for example, and tell them "Eat everything or you're in trouble! Don't waste food!". That kind of habit might train them to ignore their natural appetite limits, and lead to overeating later in life.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the food I ate as a kid and NEVER eat it as an adult. You assumption and generalization is wrong. my childhood doesn't dictate my diet, my education and intellect make those decisions for me.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[smooth wombat]

At some point every person has to take responsibility for their own choices.

No we don't. Someone else will pick up the tab. At least that's the going opinion on here. Drink too much soda? So what? Someone else will pay for your diabetes medication.

Too fat because you overeat and don't exercise? Don't worry, someone else will pay for either liposuction or a stomach band. Or both.

Your liver on the fritz because you think it's great to get blotted every weekend? Don't worry, your transplant is covered by your neighbor.

This goes along with the lack of corporate responsibility in which one can take wild, unsubstantiated risks without fear because the taxpayer will be there to bail you out. And don't you complain about having to bail these hacks out, they deserve those bonuses for the great job they're doing.

For all the talk about taking responsibility for ones actions, it's amazing how both sides don't lead by example.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Alioth]

To pick a nit (I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just being pedantic), sugar in Europe is often (mostly?) from sugar beets. Cane sugar for instance doesn't grow in Britain, but sugar beet grows fine.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Alioth]

That's so absolutely not true. Most foods I enjoy today I hated as a kid. Most foods I enjoyed as a kid, I don't eat any more or very infrequently.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[tibit]

Agreed, I meant both cane and beet sugar.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Avatar8]

Dislike of fast food is not social conditioning.

I grew up with home-cooked meals, not healthy but typical comfort food. Once I was old enough to cook for myself, most of my meals came out of the freezer and cardboard boxes. When I was old enough to drive, fast food joints were my primary source of food.

I grew obese, developed a few health problems then met and married a woman who not only knows how to cook, but has recently learned to cook healthier food. I'm losing weight, all health issues are gone and I'm eating the best food I've every had in my life.

Your analogy of a barbarian choosing between a burger and ethnic food is far off the target. Compare apples to apples. Given the choice between a McD/BK/W/whatever burger and a burger made with fresh beef, fresh vegetables and fresh baked bread, the barbarian will steer clear of the fast food one after one bite. (Actually, he'd probably eat both.)

Food does not have to be fancy to be good. It should be fresh, healthy AND taste good. Fast food restaurants provide NONE of those factors.

Try eating fresh food for a month, and you'll wretch at the thought of trying to eat a fast food burger, too. Don't try the "fast food is cheaper" argument either. It's been well documented that buying and preparing food is much cheaper than fast food, not only at the cash register but also at the doctor's office.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[s0nicfreak]

Actually kids are allowed to drink alcohol - they're just not allowed to buy it. In most countries, and in most states in the US (details), kids are allowed to drink alcohol as long as their parents say it's okay.

Children that have not yet developed self-control usually have parents to do the controlling for them. If we want to do away with fast-food advertising due to childrens' lack of self control, by that logic we would have to do away with all advertising... or, a better solution; expect parents to make up for a child's lack of self-control.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[s0nicfreak]

Fresh fruit, vegetables, and nuts, as well as dried legumes are available even at the lowest end grocery stores (though admittedly "fresh" is often relative, the stuff at the low end stores does tend to go bad rather quickly).

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yeah why should parents have to do that thing... what's it called?..."parenting"! Anything that's bad for children should be illegal so the parents can spend their time on more important things than ensuring the health of their children. Why spend effort parenting when we can simply expand the justice system and spend time earning more money to pay the taxes necessary to keep it running. We can pass laws making it illegal to sell sugary salted oily food to kids. Of course it can still be solt to adults. But if they give any of this food to their kids now they are responsible and must be punished. We can throw parents in jail without consequence because the government is in charge of parenting now.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[TheLink]

I'm not in the USA but can't you find stuff like:
1) potatoes/rolled oats/rice
2) eggs
3) sardines
4) green leafy vegetables or stuff like broccoli
5) fresh limes (do not add sugar- yes it's sour but you can get used to it - it's medicine ;) )

In case of nutritional deficiencies not covered by the above food items, buy a bottle of multivitamins and have one tablet every 3 days (this is just in case you miss some nutrients, taking too much iron, E, etc is bad for health, so every 3 days should be OK).

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[TsuruchiBrian]

The only problem with that is by "limiting or removing those influences" in the way you are suggesting means that you are not just affecting yourself but also others who may not share your point of view. Some people like fast food. Some people actually exercise enough to make fast food not as unhealthy for them. Should these people be hindered because others can't motivate themselves to exercise or have enough self control not to over indulge? Does anyone seriously want to make potato chips and french fries illegal? Do you really think that forcing bland packaging or banning corporate logos will provide any meaningful change? Sure maybe the kids brains where lighting up when they saw a corporate logo. If they had been eating the same food from a chain with no flashy logo, but instead plain text of the name of the chain, wouldn't you expect their brains to light up at the sight of particular words like "macdonalds"? maybe then we can ban words that seem to trigger appetite, like "macdonalds" and "burger king", and "chipotle". We can force these chains to change their names to less appetizing ones. Although I suspect that if their food is good, we can expect "turdburger" to be just as appetizing. Maybe we should focus our time and energy on raising children to have self control and motivation to exercise. That way we aren't reliant on fast food chains to have less compelling logos and more healthy food, or the government to be intelligent enough to actually be able to regulate something like this effectively.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[lgw]

I found it quite easy to remove the effect of TV advertizzing on my life - many years ago I entirely stopped watching any sort of TV with ads. Simple as that. I've never missed it, and I still watch as many hours of entertaining television as I care to, just not from the sorts of distribution channels that include commercials. The extra $10,000-$20,000 I've saved form 10 years of not having cable doesn't hurt, either.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[lgw]

Wait, is there a "side" that supports corporate bailouts? Or opposes them? Almost every polician of any party hands out bailouts like candy at halloween. Almost no voters for any party like or support bailiuts. They are a political problem, but not a "side" problem.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[lgw]

No, there is not some evil conspiracy to make people fat, sorry. No one is sitting around a boardroom trying to make their food "addictive", or any such nonsense.

Fast food chains like to sell food that people like to buy, simple as that. They spend lots of money tinkering with recipies and doing taste tests to find cheap ways to make food that does wel lin taste tests. Like most products, they're tuning for a good ratio of customer response to cost.

And intellectual arrogance on your part does not make you smarter than "the target audience of this crap", it just makes you an asshole.

Now, outlawing ingredients that have proven negative health effects? I don't think youd find many objections there. But "it tastes yummy so I eat more" is not a bad thing.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[smooth wombat]

What I meant was, Romney talks about people needing to take responsibility for their lives rather than expecting the government to give them a handout yet has no problem with the government bailing out irresponsible people from Goldman Sachs, AIG et al.

On the other hand, the people complaining about the bailouts are the ones who pushed for mandatory health coverage which others have to pay for. They see no contradiction about smoking like a chimney, routinely drinking until they're drunk, eating and drinking metric buttloads of foods which aren't good for them, and forcing others to pay for their irresponsibilities.

So while there are no sides in the truest sense, each "side" likes to talk about taking responsibility for ones actions but don't follow their own advice.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

These things have survival value. Sadly, they are also killing us. The ugly part is that people are getting rich pulling the trigger, knowing full well its a trigger.

but, but, but, meat was necessary for Australopithecus et al to evolve into humans says people who are against eating meat. I'm not trolling. Every time I see that argument, I want to throw my keyboard.

Guess what? We're no longer evolving (neither are most of living in a survival state -- we have everything we need to live). This is it. There will be no increase in brain volume by eating steak. Funny how that works, huh?

I agree with you, BTW.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Visigoth, not a barbarian, you insensitive clod.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[m00sh]

Liking fast food is essentially chemistry. Science (yay, science!) has basically figured out what tastes good on the human taste bud. Fast food supplies this. Sure, you gourmands out there will choke and puke at the thought of fast food, but that is purely social conditioning (the kind that intelligent people insist they're too smart to fall for). Take someone with no preconceptions, say a barbarian from a pre-modern society, and serve them two meals: one of a Big Mac and the other Thai-Burmese-Argentinian fusion or whatever is considered haute cuisine these days, and the barbie will pick the Big Mac every time.

Fast food, at least in the USA, is just not about hacking the human taste but doing so at the cheapest possible price point. Cooking oil is used longer than it should be and sourced from lower qualities. There is an indelible taste of cheap ingredients and methods in fast food.

As long as the cuisine is not restricted to be being low in fat or low in sugar, it will easily blow away fast food. Just using genuine butter and quality cheese to a burger will make it better. Easy to make better fries and drinks by using sugar for sweetening and for fries good quality oils, animal fat or butter for frying. Use crispier vegetables, use flavorings better than ketchup etc. Then, there is numerous ways to make the meat taste better and add flavorings to the bun.

I think fast food is addictive because of the convenience and low cost. In the taste department, it's allright but you could make fast food yourself in minutes that's about the same quality if you set up your kitchen. A place to quickly grill meat and those small frying machines will get your fast food fix at similar quality in 5-10 minutes. If you're generous with the cheese, dressing and fats, it will even taste better.

I don't really share your adulation for fast food.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a throwback to the days when there wasn't enough food to go around, due to the pure socialist economic system in place at the time.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[shutdown -p now]

With alcohol, it's illegal for kids to buy it, but it's legal for parents to buy it and give it to kids (most places, at least). Why not make it the same for junk food? A kid is not supposed to be making these kinds of decisions for himself, since he can't be trusted to make a rational choice. By banning sales to him directly, you force his parents to get into the equation at least. They can still do a crappy job, but that's another matter.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[shutdown -p now]

Actually he got it spot on. I can assure you that of all things that we had bad in a communist country, junk food wasn't it. When we had meat or bread or whatever, it was quality stuff (indeed, I'm having a hard time finding bread anywhere as good in US, even at twice the price). The problem was when it simply wasn't there.

The "secret ingredient" in the chips is monosodium glutamate.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[mattack2]

I was effected by my mother and father.

Wish I had mod points, that deserves +5 funny. Grammatical slams that whoosh over the person making the mistake are the best.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[mattack2]

Better fries than McDonald's? I don't think so.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jythie]

Keep in mind, this is talking about the advertizing and marketing, not the existence of the product. Children have undeveloped brains, a lot of the mechanisms that work to protect us later in life are not there yet, and advertizes have been getting increasingly good at tapping into that before parents really have an opportunity to instill healthier habits.

I personally do not think regulating such things is a good idea, but I think it is important to at least, as adults, to be aware of the impact it has on our kids so we know what to keep an eye on.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Reziac]

I dunno about that... I can eat noodles faster with chopsticks than with a fork, and I know people who can gobble rice a lot faster with chopsticks, too.

Also, I eat like a starving wolf, but I reach satiation much sooner than people who eat slowly, and as a result generally eat less per meal.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[omfglearntoplay]

I had a ton of friends from Malaysia 20 years ago. They came to college over here, and many things were different from their home country. The first 3 weeks they ate nothing but fast food, thinking it was the best deal ever. After those 3 weeks, they couldn't stand looking at the stuff. And for the remainder of the 4 years in college, I don't think I saw them eat fast food once.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jwhitener]

If we attribute the obesity problems in America only to a lack of personal discipline, that implies that Americans are the least disciplined citizenry of any modern westernized nation. I don't think that is true. There must be other factors that make it, on average, extra hard to avoid becoming obese in America.

There are a lot of food documentaries that point out all sorts of problems with our food system. It is actually pretty easy to become obese and not over eat in the US. A lot of our prepackaged / TV dinner type foods have enormous calorie counts. You could quite literally still feel hungry after every meal and gain weight.

You could push that back to discipline then, about making smarter decisions about what types of food to eat, but it is often not very clear about a particular food's total impact on your body. The massive use of Corn Syrup in just about everything doesn't help either.

You can also factor in larger issues, like the design of our cities / suburbs, necessitating that people drive to work. In more centrally planned urban centers in Europe (that tend to not have huge suburbs requiring commutes nearby), people tend to do a lot more walking or bike riding.

We also are a 'young food culture'. We don't value good food to the same extent that older country's do. Your average suburban Mom is likely buying all the packaged stuff, like Eggo's, instead of making things from scratch, which tend to be healthier.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[jwhitener]

I guess you can come full circle on the issue of how fast food tastes. I grew up with a suburbanites typical diet: single mom cooking average quick meals, often from cans or prepackaged stuff, sometimes fast food, sometimes healthier meals, sometimes comfort food like roasts, etc..

High school and early college fast food tasted good to me. Late college I started learning how to cook. After college I really got into cooking. Watching cooking shows, researching different ingredients, etc.. After learning how to make 3 star+ food in my own home, cheaply and often quickly, I was hooked. The ability to control the flavors exactingly meant every meal was custom tailored to my particular taste buds.

Any fast food now seems bland, feels unhealthy, and doesn't even seem like real food to me. I really don't think it is social conditioning. High quality, well prepared food just tastes 10x better. And (now this may be imaginary:) I swear I feel healthier and more full of energy. If you cook like that for a few months, I'd be willing to bet that a Big Mac would repulse you.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[thomasw_lrd]

All of these are true. But you're still taking away personal responsibility and blaming it all on society. There are plenty of parks where people can go and walk. Within 30 minutes drive of my home, I have over 10 places to go and walk. Traditional walking tracks, trails through some beautiful woods. Hell I can walk around my neighborhood. So I can get plenty of exercise if I wanted to.
My wife and I both work full time jobs. We do cook easy microwave meals, but we also cook good meals too. It's time consuming, but it can be done. We have 7 kids, and none of them are obese, hell none of them are overweight.
It sill all comes down to taking responsibility for your actions. We need to stop blaming everyone else for our problems. Obama can't fix it, Romney can't fix it, Congress can't fix it. Only you personally can fix the problems in your life.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Ash Vince]

This is mental. HFCS is, metabolically, no better and no worse than cane sugar or fructose you get from fruits.

It is very different chemically. It contains an entirely different ratio of fructose, sucrose and glucose. Instead of sucrose you get primarily in cane or beet sugar it contains fructose. HFCS actually contains almost no sucrose.

As to whether it is worse or better the issue I was describing is that we have no idea as nobody ever tried to find out when it was first invented. The FDA just checked it was not poisonous then approved it for sale en mass. Recently there have been studies but they have been inconclusive.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[tolkienfan]

It's worse than that: most food that's available is short on fiber and omega-3s - much shorter than our ancestors, many of whom would have eaten a lot of fish, and wouldn't have access to refined sugars.
The things we eat wouldn't be so damaging if the nutrients were properly in balance.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[heefeneet]

With alcohol, it's illegal for kids to buy it, but it's legal for parents to buy it and give it to kids (most places, at least). Why not make it the same for junk food? A kid is not supposed to be making these kinds of decisions for himself, since he can't be trusted to make a rational choice. By banning sales to him directly, you force his parents to get into the equation at least. They can still do a crappy job, but that's another matter.

That would make fast food even more desirable. Kids want alcohol because they cant have it and getting hold of some makes them "cool".

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely, culture and habituation plays just as an important part as biology. When I come back from Japan to the US I'm always shocked by how unnecessarily sugary everything is -even organic kid's yogurt is full of sugar. I don't crave it here, and Japanese people don't enjoy sugary fatty foods because they aren't habituated to them.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[tibit]

It doesn't seem to matter what the ratios are, as all those sugars are metabolized to the same thing. As long as the metabolic process for one of them doesn't somehow generate more bad harmful byproducts (including, say, "bad" hormonal modulation), it doesn't matter. So far there have been no mechanisms described, not even untested hypothetical ones, that would indicate the exact type of sugar matters in anything. What matters is that people drink, en masse, what is essentially sugared water. That is quite, quite new, evolutionarily speaking. Our bodies demonstrably don't cope very well. I can presume that a hundred generations later it won't be that much of a problem.

Re:Logos? Maybe. Tastes? Yes.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes I agree that it is important to be aware of weaknesses in the minds of young children. I also think it is important to recognize the "strengths" of minds in general, whether young or old. Kids are wired to like food that is "bad" for them because it *was* good for them in the recent past. Human minds are amazing. They can seek out what triggers pleasure with uncanny ability. I don't think the minds of children will be fooled by less overt advertising. The overt advertising is for products to compete with eachother for popularity. Children will still seek out and find junk food even if all the advertising is gone, if their parents allow them to. The advertising is not causing the children to eat junk food. It is a symptom of the high demand of children for junk food. All advertising does is pursuance children to prefer one junk food over another of the same caliber. No amount of advertising is going to make children crave carrots and peas in the same way they will crave high sugar foods. It's in our biology to seek out energy dense sources of food. Nature used to restrict our ability to actually eat high energy foods all the time (without exercising to get it). Now parents must do this job.

Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

So they scanned the minds of kids? Next up, the Australian government lays out plans to watch everyone's brain scans for signs of terrorism.

Re:Next up

[artfulshrapnel]

Any reason why not? As long as they volunteer and they know they're being studied, I bet giving everyone on earth a brainscan and cataloging the results would do wonders for science.

And what, they're kids so we shouldn't study how their minds work? Do you have a better way to learn about how they develop? Won't someone please thing of what the children think?!

Here you go folks....

[Adult film producer]

the pizza hut, the pizza hut and the kentucky fried chicken. show your children this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZI99nwv9VA

Re:Here you go folks....

[gagol]

And the resulting damage to kids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgh0eJH2dY

Re:Here you go folks....

[norpy]

I remember singing that in school as a kid, although even though i was only 10 I wondered why we were singing commercial brands in music class.

Re:Here you go folks....

[Anonymous Coward]

We were taught that song in pre-K. I must have been three or four years old. Three cheers for capitalism.

Re:Here you go folks....

[madmayr]

ever seen the movie 'demolition man'?

ORLY?

[Crio]

Do you really expect "appetite center" to lit up when shown logo of nappies?
Right now it is simply Pavlov's dog - sime images are associated with food, some don't. Compare logos of providers of "non-healthy" food to some healthy food - vegetables, fruits - then you'll have something to talk about, but I bet you'll find no difference.

Re:ORLY?

[jrumney]

Compare logos of providers of "non-healthy" food to some healthy food - vegetables, fruits - then you'll have something to talk about, but I bet you'll find no difference.

To find no difference, you'd need to compare them with logos of healthy food that comes with cheap plastic toys and a playground. I find my children quickly stopped asking to go to McDonalds when I started buying them a cheeseburger, chips and orange juice from the a-la-carte menu for taking out, instead of a "Happy Meal" and eating in and letting them use the playground there.

Re:ORLY?

[CubicleZombie]

I get annoyed with the "Mod parent up!" posts, but damn, that's insightful. Parent of a 12 week old here. I'll remember that.

As a very young kid, I remember Mom taking me to McDonalds on the way to pick up my older brother from school. It was only for the playground. She never bought me any food there. And I always wanted fruits instead of candy at the grocery store. Guess she was onto something.

Re:ORLY?

[Dodgy G33za]

Let me do you a further favour. Don't take your kids to fast food outlets AT ALL.

It beggars belief that the audience of slashdot, whom I consider above average intelligence, think that fast food has any place in a child's life.

no self control

[chentiangemalc]

lets blame advertisers for poor parenting.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Everyone knows that advertisements send out magical brainwashing waves that make you want to buy products. That explains why I buy things I find in advertisements. Wait...

Re:no self control

[lazybeam]

My 2 year old recognises the golden arches and a few other "naughty" food companies: he calls most of them "hamburger". But I have the skill to say "no" to him. Usually.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're "financially strapped" you have no business eating at McDonalds to begin with. You can eat far healthier and far cheaper food. I know because I just spent several years living well below the poverty line, and I couldn't have afforded to eat at McDonalds.

And no amount of advertising can force you to buy something. It can let you know that thing exists, but you still get to make your own choice. Humans are not mindless drones. So yes, it is poor parenting, a failure to act in the best interests of their children. A 5 year old child does not get to McD's on his own nor does that child earn his own money to buy that crap food. This is not really debatable: there was a time when parents acted much more responsibly due to a difference in culture as opposed to today, and even though fast food was wildly available, people were far thinner then. Seeing someone obese was a rarity, not the norm as it is today.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor parenting? Are you serious? So the advertisers who have billions of dollars at their disposal to use science against kids, are not to blame?

Yeah, the overworked (if one can find work), financially strapped, and health uninsured parent is supposed to parent well.

Not really that hard. Throw the TV out the window and spend less time on the Internet.

Re:no self control

[oztiks]

You joke but the funny thing I find is the power of advertising. I remember watching this Detol ad where the wife just washed her hands and the husband kisses her good bye before going to work and just before he leaves all of a sudden he feels the wife's hands and he falls back in love with her all over again, the music changes and he's in a dream land then all of a sudden snaps out of it. At the conclusion I thought wow .... Voodoo Soap, interesting pitch.

It really doesn't matter how much technology grows, marketers stick to this funny little formula that really fails more then it succeeds, however, when it does succeed WOW the effects can be tremendous. How many lack lusting ads are our there vs the 2 - 3 really good ones.

Re:no self control

[Genda]

I swear the public doesn't get it. For 70 years, advertisers have been doing double blind studies on how to control and manipulate you. They go for your conscious mind, they go for your unconscious mind, they assault your pleasure centers, they know what frequencies in what order trigger certain centers in your brain. They are aware of when to target you by common daily habits and schedules. In short advertizing is a science with a cutting edge that make a scalpel look like a blunt instrument. They go after your biology, culture, demographic, political views, religious beliefs, you social opinions. Its one of the reasons we now see sound bite instead of meaningful campaigns. That my friends if the work of Wall street advertising as applied by politics which has degenerated into just one more product being sold to semi comatose mouth breathing pubic.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that the such advertising makes parenting more difficult. If there is no advertising targeted on children, you can have tv, you can watch it occasionally and you do not have to do nothing special regarding the food. If there is a lot of kiddy advertising around, you can not turn on tv around kids, they still get see it in preschool or elsewhere and since kiddy advertising are quite effective they still want that food. You do not have to give it to them, but it is still a huge attraction for them. The difference shows up around teen age, when they go around the town by themselves.

When you spend a lot of money on making parenting harder, do not complain that parents fail more often. Of course they do, they would have to be much better parents then previous generation to counter that effect. (Not speaking about the fact that previous generation often considers healthy eating bullshit and buys grand-kids unhealthy food because of course "current parents obsess too much".)

You made the job harder, so yeah you are partly to blame. People do what they can and harder conditions cause less good average results - that holds for anything not only parenting. Analogy: incompetent management decisions causes low quality of the product looses quality. It is not that employees become lazier, it is that the conditions they work in are harder.

Re:no self control

[lister king of smeg]

Is it really that hard to say no? if they through a fit either ignore them to show that their fit won't help or punish them them for it depending on the severity of their actions. thats what my parents did and we barley ever ate out. my mom always said it was cheaper to eat that lunches she made at home so he would eat that no fast food. she would also keep small healthy snacks in her purse and in the car. if We were whining for fast food she ask us is we wanted an apple we would usualy say no and then she would say then your not really hungry and proceed to ignore punish.

Pavlovian responses only last so long when trigged with no positive reinforcement

Re:no self control

[Genda]

Ta da!!! Superb call good sir! My friends, until they have pubic hair, NO TV. I know 5 different families whose kids never watched the tube before they were near the end of puberty. The outcome is striking. The kids are brighter, more well balanced, more socially mature, more responsible, more productive and better disciplined. I mean its shocking. I can't say that they are better because the parenting was better, or that the simple lack of TV made such an incredible difference, but it left me with the experience that TV is profoundly destructive to the developing human brain and should simply be eliminated from the childrens' intellectual diet.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide specific examples of A) what was your income per year that put you at below the poverty line
and B) What exactly did you eat that was so much cheaper than mcdonalds. ... So yes, it is poor parenting

Do you have kids? If you don't I would suggest you have about as much to say on good parenting as a virgin does
on good sex. By the way parents do not live in a vaccum. The ability to act responsible is easier in a society that
acts more responsible, like say, I don't know when corporations did not use science against kids.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T HAVE KIDS YOU CAN'T AFFORD

    Wow, what a human being...

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

And no amount of advertising can force you to buy something. It can let you know that thing exists, but you still get to make your own choice.

You overestimate the extent of free will. Advertisers don't spend billions a year just to let you know that McDonalds (still) exists. They do it because they absolutely can control your behavior. Maybe not reliably enough to force a specific person to eat there, but on the average, it works.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor parenting? Are you serious? So the advertisers who have billions of dollars at their disposal to use
science against kids, are not to blame?

Actually they're using it against you, not your kids- your kids don't have any money. The association between pleasure and the company logo is formed because of the association of pleasure and the taste of the food. If you don't feed that slop to your kids, then it won't matter. If you're that worried about it, make a point of walking your kids past their dumpsters and fry oil vats behind the building every day, and pretty soon your kids will associate the "Golden Arches" with the smell of rotten meat and flies.

health uninsured parent

You obviously don't pay much attention to the news or politics.

In this context that would be supernatual parenting.

Bullshit. Get off your lazy ass and raise your kids. The amount of time and money you spend going to get McPuke burgers is more than you'd spend just frying up a few patties of ground lean on a whole wheat bun at home. But you don't want to do it, you don't feel like doing it, so instead you waste the gas to drive to the fast food place, sit in line, and order up some fat burgers. And don't forget to get the 24oz. jug of soda to wash it down, you know because that's so much easier than just giving your kids water (rolls eyes).

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Never experienced that. At least that I know of (just like I don't know whether or not I'm in the Matrix).

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

brilliant observation.
the answer is probably simpler than you imagine. there is a vested interest in not getting
it. if the public got it, they would have to admit that they are the prey of sophisticated
sociopaths.. they would also have to let go of that ultimate american illusion : that they are individuals.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Television is profoundly destructive to those with no self-control or ambition. Sadly, that might make television destructive to a large majority of the population.

Re:no self control

[cheekyjohnson]

The point is that the such advertising makes parenting more difficult.

Just about anything could make parenting more difficult. The Internet, television, advertisements, the existence of sharp objects (kitchen knives, for instance), etc.

Better ban it all because certain people can't handle those things! Or at the very least, it's partly their fault (which is bad for some reason).

Re:no self control

[sjames]

Let 'em set the hooks, just not the way they want. If the song is made for the commercial, think back to the worst stomach flu you ever had and imagine it to the rhythm of the song. If they try grabbing a popular song, just cross associate. Like when the allergy medication lifted a few bars from Tommy, I just associated the commercial with "we're not going to take it" and hilarity ensues. Now if I ever see the commercial again, my first thought will be about not taking the medication.

Of course, in some cases I must conclude that either nobody at the ad agency remembered the lyrics or they REALLY hate the client.

Re:no self control

[X0563511]

That's funny. When I had $20 to last me till payday, I ate ramen noodles and some other cheap shit that was 80% salt.

If I had wanted anything healthy I would have spent all of that $20 instead of the $5 for 2 weeks worth of ramen.

Re:no self control

[sjames]

So what if you could afford kids at the time and then things turned for the worse? You can't just send them back you know.

Or do you also believe in a just word where the parents must have done something wrong?

Re:no self control

[Krneki]

This is nothing short from mind hacking. There is only one way to beat them, don't watch commercials. Not an easy task though. This is why I stopped watch TV at age of 15 and thanks to adblock and similar addons I managed to remove them from my browsing experience.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, people like GP are a diamond dozen.

Re:no self control

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'd like to rephrase that a bit. No parent likes to be called a "poor parent", and all parents want to believe that they are doing the best for their children. However, the advertisers are a very powerful opponent. Parents need to view this as a challenge for them, that requires even more effort on their part, to achieve what is best for their children.

Fast food advertisers will always find a way to wiggle around any attempt to limit their effectiveness. The challenge for parents will always be there. It's up to the parents to master this opponent.

And, no, it is not simple and easy.

Re:no self control

[jandersen]

lets blame advertisers for poor parenting.

Groan. Need I say more? *Groan*

This sort of response has always been stupid, in my view, but with the amount of knoledge we now have about nutrition, how we become obese, how advertising influences people etc etc etc, it is staggerign that there are still this sort of uninformed opinions about.

First of all, nobody is blaming it all on advertising - not least because there is a lot more going on than idiotic TV adverts. Like the fact that when you go to any shop (even so called health food shops) the ratio between sugary, fatty luxury snacks and appealing, genuinely healthy alternatives is something like one or two orders of magnitude, if I'm not much mistaken.

And secondly, blaming it on poor parenting or "lack of self-control" is just too much like blaming the victim. People make poor choices because they are not really given any real alternatives. It is so easy to blurt things like "just pull yourself together" - but do you even know how to do this? Can you teach this skill to others? Are you able to help people overcome their moments of weakness? If you know and cared, you wouldn't say this kind of shit.

Re:no self control

[Mindcontrolled]

True. Apart from that, I simply decided to disconnect myself from the food industry. Anything that wouldn't have been considered a craft product a 100 years ago - like bread, butter sausages, etc - I make myself. The rest I try to get from non-industrial style operations.

And you know, it doesn't take significant time. If I am really too burned out for cooking a decent meal in the evening, there's always some leftover stew of some kind in the freezer that I can nuke. And there is so much tasty, healthy and cheap stuff that you can whip up in 15 to 30 minutes.

Re:no self control

[slim]

Hmm, on Monday I bought a pack of seasonal vegetables (carrot, swede, onion, parsnip) for £1.50 and a carton of value tomato juice for 65p. The soup will feed me for the rest of the week.

Re:no self control

[Alioth]

It's really easy to eat cheaper than Mc.Donald's. It might not be cheaper in *time* but it certainly is in money. For example, I made this ( http://misrecetasdecomer.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/sopa-de-papa-con-chorizo-espaol.html , use google translate if necessary) to bring in to work for lunch. That provided 4 days of lunches which are as filling as a standard size Big Mac meal but at half the cost, and while not exactly health freak food, I guarantee it contains less salt than a Big Mac meal, and almost certainly less fat (and IMHO much more tasty)

Re:no self control

[DNS-and-BIND]

There are three professions where being untruthful is the key to success: Lawyers, salespeople, and advertising. All three are hired to portray their client in the most favorable light possible, and the very best ones lie through their teeth. The worst of these three are the advertisers because they have legions of psychologists and scientists trying to figure out the best way to lie to people.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, manipulations of various kinds are happening all the time and from all areas of life. I urge people to not be too naive. Getting rid of advertisements won't make you enlightened (is North Korea better off?).
To a degree, that's just how we are made and we have to deal with it.
I think the best we can do is: more and better EDUCATION. (That is: general education about the 'human nature', not just whatever is taught at any particular school.) It's the only thing that can push humanity forward.

Re:no self control

[schroedingers_hat]

So you're saying we should bring the fast food home and use it to destroy all the kids favourite toys then send them to their room with no dinner?

Re:no self control

[dreamchaser]

Poor parenting? Are you serious? So the advertisers who have billions of dollars at their disposal to use
science against kids, are not to blame?
Yeah, the overworked (if one can find work), financially strapped, and health uninsured parent is supposed
to parent well. In this context that would be supernatual parenting.

Bullshit. Plenty of poor parents managed to do a good job raising their kids. Your post is just indicative of the modern mentality that people are not responsible for their own lives and actions.

Re:no self control

[rtb61]

More like, let's blame doctorates in psychology for targeting marketing at children. I don't know about you but I fully expect a person with a doctorate in psychology to scam a child into eating food that will harm the child, psychopaths go to university to you know and they lover to be able to control people.

Currently the worst thing around is using a calorimeter to measure calories. Dry out food and burn it to measure the energy it contains, guess what even roughage has calories. A new measure is required human consumable calories per minute. Otherwise human excreta just like all the other excreta on the planet contains a shit load of calories. Ever wonder why raw fruits and vegetables come up with near the same calorie content as an equal volume of lolly water, yep, the ass hats are counting all those calories that it is impossible for a human to be able to metabolise and that they in fact excrete out and a nett loss of calories in the failed attempt to digest them. Where as with the lolly water apart from the water and the purposefully addictive junk chemicals, that sugar is fully digestible at very rapid rates.

Re:no self control

[silentcoder]

To counter a joke with sad facts.
The truth is that study after study has found that nobody is immune to advertising -even as we all think we are (that's part of WHY we aren't).

Ask people - nearly all of them will tell you they look at products in the store and buy the best value product as determined primarily by the price.

Let them buy and not know you are watching: 85% of them will consistently buy the thing with the most appealing packaging even if it costs significantly more. If asked afterward, they rationalize it as believing it was better quality (without any actual reason for this belief).

The small 15% who really DO manage to consciously and deliberately override advertising (no, they are NOT immune, they just learned to recognize the response and deliberately ignore it - like choosing NOT to wank when you're horny) - are the same kind of people who shop with a calculator in hand and make damn sure they don't go over-budget - and dont' buy anything not on the list unless there were enough specials to put them UNDER budget by more than the extra costs.
Those people DO exist- and they are the reason shops have no-name brands. The same product in plain packaging bought in bulk and sold cheaper.

Those people buy the no-name (I'm one of them, most of the time anyway) stuff because we know it's the better value - but the more expensive pretty packaging stuff is stocked right next to it, and the vast majority of people buy THOSE.

The science simply disproves most of our free will illusions. I won't discount it's existence entirely - but make no mistake, the vast majority of our lives are responding to ancient urges without us ever actually rationally thinking about and questioning those actions - let alone choosing to do otherwise (though we can apparently). People who figured out what those urges are CAN and DO exploit this tendency.

Re:no self control

[lxs]

I thought he was talking about ads for fetish clothing.

Re:no self control

[drrilll]

Fundamentally on the money. If you are a parent you have a duty to not feed your kids crap and then sit them in front of the TV. And yes, I am a parent, and yes, it can be hard, but that is no excuse to fail your kids. This generation is saddling their kids with poor nutrition and exercise habits that will haunt them for life. Cancel your cable, take them to the park, make McD's a rarity. I've eaten fast food. On average it costs $20 for my entire family to eat crappy tasting food. Unless you are eating prime rib, groceries are cheaper. I am being harsh, but these kids don't make the choices, and there are far too many obese children around.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

How many lack lusting ads are our there

I'd heard that ads are increasingly raunchy, but still I think you mean lack lustre.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, it was actually painful to have to read that.

Please stay after school and write "a dime a dozen" on the blackboard 500 times.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

TV can certainly be destructive and turn people into mindless drones, but don't you see what's really going on here?

No TV isn't the cause of well-adjusted children. It's an effect that shares the same source as the result of better discipline. You dismissed it, but parents who care enough about their children to consciously turn the TV off will also care enough to discipline, encourage, motivate and teach their children.

Re:no self control

[JaredOfEuropa]

TV itself isn't destructive, it's just that kids don't really pick up anything of value from it. Letting your kids watch TV all day every day is the mental equivalent of raising them on nothing but crackers and milk. TV is fine as entertainment for kids, just make sure it's not all they are doing. Same as letting them play video games. That is what my parents did: we watched TV (in the living room, we did not have a TV in our own rooms) or messed around on my dad's homebrew computer, but after an hour or so our parents would shoo us out to play. My parents didn't use the TV as a babysitter, and we never learned how to "veg out" in front of the screen; at a later age I never spent any significant time channel surfing or vegging out to watch any old rubbish.

Re:no self control

[ibwolf]

There are three professions where being untruthful is the key to success: Lawyers, salespeople, and advertising.

Salespeople and advertising are two sides of the same coin. On the other hand you left out politicians.

Re:no self control

[seven of five]

Whoah there.

While much of what you said's true, lots of people have no desire for particular kinds of fast food despite a never ending stream of ads. Ditto car brands, fiber cereal, movies in genres they don't care for, ED remedies, etc.

I think they do a good job of tickling the brains of people predisposed to things, but it's not like they have a magic fungus that turns us all into marching zombie ants.

Re:no self control

[nedlohs]

And yet my single parent mother with whom we moved every 6-12 months to stay with the next set of friends (much cheaper than renting by ourselves) managed to parent well enough. I don't think she ever took us to McDonalds, we did eat lentil soup and similar more often than I would choose to now. I'm pretty sure she wasn't supernatural either.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide specific examples of A) what was your income per year that put you at below the poverty line
and B) What exactly did you eat that was so much cheaper than mcdonalds

I my income was about $8000/year. I ate foods I made myself from fresh and cooked vegetables, rice, beans, potatoes, and so on. I tracked every penny spent on food: none of my meals were over $1,and many were around $0.50 per meal. Good luck eating at McDs for fifty cents per meal.

Re:no self control

[tibit]

Perhaps.

Re:no self control

[X0563511]

That same pack of veggies would have cost me $4 or $5, and the tomato juice another $3 most likely.

This would last me at most 3 days.

Re:no self control

[Webcommando]

I know 5 different families whose kids never watched the tube before they were near the end of puberty. The outcome is striking. The kids are brighter, more well balanced, more socially mature, more responsible, more productive and better disciplined.

I know one family that is a counter anecdote: mine. My girls probably watched more TV and used the computer more than you might think was appropriate based on the statement above. They are bright, well-behaved, productive, and have pretty good grades in school .

The catch? They enjoyed shows about WW II, science, technology (how many "How It's Made" are there anyway?) and the like. On the computer, they spent time creating pictures, researching strange topics, or playing with a 3D rendering program they downloaded...and yes Facebook and Zero Punctuation.

I think much of the issue with new media is what kind of interests they have when watching TV. If favorite show is "iCarly", "House wives of..." or wrestling then I see much of the problem with TV. However, as we techys know, all TV isn't created equal. Personally, Disney channel is a problem :)

Re:no self control

[ultranova]

lets blame advertisers for poor parenting.

Let's blame advertisers for taking advantage of parent's poor self control in order to benefit at children's expense, yes.

Re:no self control

[Dodgy G33za]

My 15 yo daughter has never watched commercial TV in my house, and my home SOE uses firefox with adblocker. I am amazed that any thinking person would do any different really.

Oh, and barbie and disney are a no-no in my house as well. I would far prefer my daughter to grow up as normal human being rather than a 'pink princess'.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

>If you're "financially strapped" you have no business eating at McDonalds to begin with. You can eat far healthier and far cheaper food.

Where can you find a better source cost of hamburgers for $1 pop with all the fixins?

Re:no self control

[cyborg_zx]

So what we can conclude from this is that people who are ignorant of how to cook will view the cheapest prepared food as "the cheapest" regardless.

Re:no self control

[operagost]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, on Monday I bought a pack of seasonal vegetables (carrot, swede, onion, parsnip) for £1.50 and a carton of value tomato juice for 65p. The soup will feed me for the rest of the week.

No it won't. Well it will, assuming that you complement it with stuff already in your pantry. Otherwise you'll be starving.

For starters, I doubt that for a £1.50 you're getting a package of vegatables that is huge in quantity. Where I live, a $1.50 will get you a bag of veggies that has 6 servings. Lets say that you can get double that (12), and lets say that each serving is 50 calories (It could be as low as 25 calories, depending on what you get of course). That brings you to 600 calories for the bag. Tomato juice? If it's pure tomatoe juice you get about 40 calories per cup. I'm not sure how much 65p will get you, let's say that's a half gallon (8 cups) 8 cups * 40 calories/cup = 320 calories.

If you're an absolute couch potatoe and do nothing, and don't weigh much, you might be able to get away with 1200 calories a day for maintaning your weight. So your tomatoe juice and vegatables (920 calories) will last you about 3/4 of a day. Maybe as little as a 1/2 day, if you're moderatly active.

------
And for the pedantics, of course we are talking about food calories.

Re:no self control

[geekoid]

And she is going to be screwed when she gets out on her own.
How about you watch commercials and explain how they are trying to manipulate you?

I would rather my children and look at a commercial and take it apart, then be hidden from them until they end up on there own.

And just so you know, my kids have been able to take apart a commercial since they were 10.

Re:no self control

[ultranova]

Your post is just indicative of the modern mentality that people are not responsible for their own lives and actions.

Unless they're advertisers, in which case they're not responsible for preying on children - or adults either, for that matter. Got it.

More and more I'm convinced that "personal responsibility" is just another way for evil people to justify their evil. It's always the victim who bears the responsibility, never the asshole who preys on him. I can certainly understand why the predators themselves would prefer to deceive themselves, but why does anyone else support such twisted worldview - a fear that stopping malefactors would require money and/or regulations?

Re:no self control

[slim]

£1.50 is currently $2.50, and we're talking one large swede, 4 carrots, a small onion and a large parsnip. It's a litre of tomato juice = 4.2 US cups. I might add a potato, which would add, say 25p to the cost.

The soup from just those ingredients will last me 7 evening meals if I let it, and wasn't sharing. Actually, since I'm not struggling financially, I'm likely to vary my meals, and end up with leftovers that have to be thrown away -- but if I needed to, I could.

So yeah, I neglected lunches. Still, it's significantly cheaper than McDonald's, and while it may be marginally more expensive than just instant ramen, it won't harm you over time.

(Not that I've anything against instant ramen. Add some pak-choi, some sliced mushrooms, some radishes, beansprouts, maybe a small amount of grilled chicken and you've got yourself a balanced meal.)

Re:no self control

[slim]

By the way, if I was really trying to eat cheaply, I'd live on homemade dahl, bombay potato, home-made chapatis. It's nice enough to eat for fun - I tend to make two batches at once, each with a different pulse. Starting with dried pulses is cheapest.

I costed it once; I think it came to 35p for a large portion consisting of two kinds of dahl, bombay potatoes plus a couple of chapatis. That's 50 US cents, but of course you can't just do that conversion because food prices vary geographically.

Dahl: Onion, spices, pulses, tinned tomato (optional)
Bombay potato: Onion, potato, spices, tinned tomato
Chaptis: flour and water

I don't know what ingredients are cheapest where you live - but something healthy will be.

Re:no self control

[Guppy]

Television doesn't have to be a cesspool, though. Look at PBS -- no advertising except for a brief thanks to the Sponsors. You get shows like Sesame Street and Electric Company for the younger kids, then on to NOVA, National Geographic, and such for the older ones.

Re:no self control

[CastrTroy]

Bread is pretty simple to make at home. Look for those no-knead bread recipes online. They make great bread, and require almost no work . We've started making quite a bit of our own bread now that even the terrible "Wonderbread" is $3 a loaf.

Re:no self control

[CastrTroy]

THIS. I've never understood the people who think that being overweight is the result of fast food being too cheap. For $10 I can make a healthy dinner for my family and have left overs for lunch the next day. I could probably do it cheaper, but I'm counting a meal with meat in it. Fast food costs about $5 a person, and is getting closer to $10 for the "adult" size meal. Same goes for entertainment. I can take my whole family to the public pool or skating rink for under $10 but it costs $10+ per person to sit and watch a movie. Going on a walk is free. Going to the park is free, Going on a bike ride is free (once you buy a bike). Being overweight is all about making the wrong choices, and has nothing to do with how much money you have. Although there is a big correlation between people who make bad choice and people who have no money, and there for a correlation between no money and poor health.

Re:no self control

[Anonymous Coward]

People make poor choices because they are not really given any real alternatives.

People always say this when discussions about food come up, but who doesn't have a real alternative? Usually when I ask the response is "It's cheaper to eat fast food than it is to eat healthy when you're poor" and the answer is that's a load of horse crap. Where I live, the average fast food meal for 2 runs between $12-$15 / meal. At just 2 meals a day, you're spending $24-$30 for two people. By comparison, our entire grocery budget for a month (including steaks, vegetables, pork, chicken, beans, race and bread) amounts to about $300, and will feed us 3 meals a day. At the absolute best, it is just as expensive to eat out as it is to eat at home. So who are these people with no alternative to eating out and feeding their kids McDonalds?

Re:no self control

[sjames]

That might be a bit extreme, but splicing the creepy King from Burger King into the stranger danger video might be a decent idea.

Re:no self control

[digitalsolo]

Interesting, but still a relatively small sample size. I watched TV and played video games regularly. My favorite shows as a kid were 3-2-1 Contact, Mr. Wizard, Nova, and, of all things, This Old House. Of course there were several cartoon series I enjoyed as well, mostly Batman and X-Men.

By most standards I'm above average to well above average in each of your categories that your example children excelled in. Perhaps the families you associate with are generally of above average intelligence (their parenting choices would generally back this theory) and that's why their children have turned out well. I am not endorsing using the television as a babysitter, simply offering some counterpoint to your example above.

Re:no self control

[digitalsolo]

Very valid point. I've known plenty of rich fat people and I know a ton of skinny people that are poor as shit.

Re:no self control

[Mindcontrolled]

Yeah, I really need to get more into that - I do the occasional focaccia and played around with sourdough a bit - I like doing it, but then again, I do have good, traditional bakers in town.

Re:no self control

[RyoShin]

Especially considering it's a personal anecdote, this seems like one of those "causation vs. correlation" things; like how more intelligent children tend to have households with more books per person than less intelligent ones. (There are plenty of studies on the effects of TV on youth, and to my knowledge they all make a negative correlation, but I can't be arsed to find any right now.)

In both cases, it's not that the child is reading a crap-load of books or that the child has completely avoided any sort of media (unless they were Amish, I'd be freaking amazed if the children of those five families had not watched TV or a movie once before puberty), but that they have parents who not only take a vested interest in their child's upbringing, as well as have the time and resources to accomplish such a task. (The former for sure, the latter possibly.) They likely also made sure they got healthy meals wherever, got them interested in a number of topics, at least tried to get them to learn an instrument and play a sport regularly, and so on.

I wouldn't say that TV itself is destructive, but unchecked TV can be. If the children aren't being taught that much of what they see on TV is fake (I'm not even talking about sci-fi, I'm talking about things like CSI and soap operas), they'll come to expect that as being normal/expected because as they grow they take in everything they can from their surroundings to build a world basis upon. If they're watching copious amounts of TV, it means the parents don't care to make sure they are introduced to a large variety of activities, or perhaps they are a single-parent household where the parent has to work multiple jobs without being able to afford a babysitter (or the sitter in question allows such TV viewing)--both these things can be detrimental to a child's development, even without a TV present.

Re:no self control

[jwhitener]

That is one of the larger issues. America is a young food culture, we don't value food, nor have many traditional recipes (except in some intense cultural centers, like New Orleans, etc..). We don't place as much emphasis on cooking from scratch.

I remember in college that Freshmen were offered a 'cooking away from home' class of some sort, because the majority of them had no idea how to make even simple meals.

Re:no self control

[oztiks]

One of those situations where I haven't used a term or phrase all that often and trusted the spell checker a bit too much without proofing, sorry.

Re:no self control

[oztiks]

I'm sorry stop you right there, you're trying to tell me Marketers are smart? scientific, calculated individuals with the capacity to introduce intelligence into their the daily work/life?

Sorry, not buying it, most Marketers I know are flaming idiots that live by an archaic formula of easy is good, complex is bad and if it's complex bury your head in the sand until is passes, then live life when everything is easy all over again.

Just me I could be wrong.

Re:no self control

[slim]

Yes, it does seem that way. On American web sites I see recipes that include ingredients like "One jar pasta sauce" or "one can mushroom soup". So even many Americans who choose to cook, are directed to cook using processed ingredients.

Not that I'm opposed to labour-saving options. But I can't see how using a jar of pasta sauce (containing added salt, sugar, preservatives, etc.) is better than chopping and softening an onion, and chucking in a can of tomatoes (normally no added ingredients)

Starts with first solid food...

[mspohr]

There is good evidence that food preferences starts with the first solid food. Most infants (at least in the US) are started on white rice cereal and this has been shown to lead to a preference for high glycemic index foods (simple sugars and starches) leading to obesity. They have found that brown rice (low glycemic index) is much better.
Much better to start with low glycemic index foods (and stay with them for life).

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[Anonymous Coward]

has been shown to lead to a preference for high glycemic index foods

Citation please.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong website buddy, you want wikipedia

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[mspohr]

Don't usually reply to ACs who don't know how to use Google but here's one for a start:

Sun Q, Spiegelman D, van Dam RM, Holmes MD, Malik VS, Willett WC, and Hu FB. “White Rice, Brown Rice, and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in US Men and Women. Archives of Internal Medicine. June 2010; 170(11):961-969.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[Anonymous Coward]

No it starts before that, breast milk already incorporates different tastes, depending on what the mother ate before (with some delay of course). A lot of people also feed their children with breast milk replacements, developed by large food companies. These stuff also help to drive children towards artificial/industrial food, as they in corporate different industrial sugars.

In short: If you want that the kid likes a wide variety of healthy food, eat that stuff while breast feeding.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the original AC.
That is all well and good, but I assume the GP is requesting citation for the link between first foods and adult life preference to high GI foods.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[Mindcontrolled]

Hm. How does that work with basically all of south-east asia? The preference for milled white rice is as strong there as here, and rice mush is in all likelihood the first solid food asian kids receive. No obesity epidemic there, though. No question that brown rice is better for a variety of reasons, but I find it hard to see it as a causative agent for the current obesity epidemic.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Sun Q, Spiegelman D, van Dam RM, Holmes MD, Malik VS, Willett WC, and Hu FB. “White Rice, Brown Rice, and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in US Men and Women. Archives of Internal Medicine. June 2010; 170(11):961-969.

That is a study of the difference between white and brown rice and how they affect rates of type 2 diabetes in grown men. It doesn't mention anything to do with a connection between foods that infants are fed and their preferences later in life.

When you make a statement like "There is good evidence" then you really need to be able to back that up with compelling evidence from a reliable source.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[nedlohs]

That says nothing about a correlation between what infants first eat and a later life preference for high glycemic index foods. Let alone anything causative. Which is what you claimed there was good evidence for.

It makes sense, my kids favorite foods are the things we let him eat. The kid across the street who eats spicy foods far more often (due to cultural background differences) seems to like spicy food much more. But "good evidence" implies you have more than just anecdotes. Especially since you were far more specific - white rice cereals in particular leads to high glycemic index foods in general (not just white rice cereals).

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[geekoid]

Brought to you by the bullshit committee on nonsense.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[mspohr]

I cited a scientific article, not anecdotes.
It's clear that you are not a doctor and don't have the training necessary to research this topic and understand the results. That is fine. There are people who have spent many years studying medicine. We call them scientific experts. Medicine is complicated. I don't have time to explain years of medical training in a few words on slashdot.
You may find more understandable information oriented to lay people here:
http://www.drgreene.com/whiteout
And here is an interesting related article which popped up today:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/bittman-is-alzheimers-type-3-diabetes/#more-134495

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[nedlohs]

You cited a scientific article that had nothing to do with the claim. That's even less useful than anecdotes.

Yes I could research the topic myself. But it would be orders of magnitude faster for you just give me the damn titles/authors of a few of them. Is that really so hard?

I don't want "more understandable information oriented to lay people here", I want a simple citation to a scientific publication that actually says what you claimed.

I didn't ask for you explain years of medical training in a few words. I asked for a simple citation.

Not one that says that white rice increases the risk of diabetes. Not one that says that high GI foods are bad for you. Not one that says that the American diet is bad for you. Simply one that says that eating white rice cereal as an infant leads to a preference for high GI foods.

And thanks for diving right in with the insults, even though none were sent your way. Seriously is it that hard to mention one related citation? Or just to say "I can't be bothered, do your own research" without adding "even though you are obviously an idiot who won't be able to"?

Note hidden in you lay people link where some actual citations, but they seem to be about taste preference development not specifically GI level preference development.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[mspohr]

Since you are a somewhat resistant learner...
Sorry, I can't be bothered, do your own research.

Re:Starts with first solid food...

[nedlohs]

Couldn't hold of on the insult I see. Because typing in a reference for you claim is so much more work than name calling?

McDonalds!

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds!

Kentucky Fried Children & Jaba The Hut!

Clearly McDonald's isn't included ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their burgers taste like crap as does their nuggets. Their breakfasts aren't too bad but, kids don't eat breakfast at McDonald's.

The last time I ate at McDonald's, I ended up with projectile vomiting that lasted for three days. It was from McDonald's too as it was the only thing I had eaten that day and the previous that had the potential for contamination. (I was a poor student at the time and often skipped meals.) It is amazing how much strength your body can exert to empty your stomach quickly.

Re:Clearly McDonald's isn't included ...

[cyssero]

The last time I ate at McDonald's, I ended up with projectile vomiting that lasted for three days. It was from McDonald's too as it was the only thing I had eaten that day and the previous that had the potential for contamination. (I was a poor student at the time and often skipped meals.) It is amazing how much strength your body can exert to empty your stomach quickly.

For starters, you'd probably had a crappy diet being a poor student and skipping meals. I doubt McD's had anything to do with your reflux apart from the fact it was food. And I know it's hyperbole, but if you're projectile vomiting for 3 days, you need to go to hospital.

Re:Clearly McDonald's isn't included ...

[YttriumOxide]

While I wouldn't call McDonald's "high quality" food anywhere, I do notice distinct quality difference in different countries.

Their burgers in Australia and New Zealand tend to both be quite high quality, with good meat; fresh lettuce / salad parts; and fries that are recognisably made from potato. Here in Germany, the standard is somewhat lower; but still not so bad. France seems somewhat lower than here in Germany - bordering on "I'm not sure I want to eat that". And the UK is even lower at "I'm quite sure I don't want to eat that".
For the absolute bottom of the scale though, the one time I ate McDonalds in the US, I was absolutely unable to eat more than a couple of bites due to the poor quality. The bun was literally sweet with the amount of sugar used in it; the meat was over-salted and tasted more like a beef/pork mix than pure beef (which is fine when it is really a mix, but when it is supposed to be beef, that's a bit of a concern); and the fries were more fat/oil than potato matter. Even the drink tasted syrupy and weird (I found that in bottled drinks there also though; so I'm assuming it's the difference between the HFCS based versions and the sugar-cane based versions that I'm used to)

It might not always be like that there, and indeed may vary from state to state or store to store even; but that one time (which was at LAX airport for the record) has turned me off the idea of trying it there ever again.

parental self control

[Anonymous Coward]

long before children develop self-control

This is true, self control is something that develops slowly and isn't present in young children. This is why parents need to provide a substitute for that self control. When I was young my family ate every meal at home, from healthy home cooked food. We NEVER ate at fast food joints, and weren't exposed to fast food advertising. Surprise, now in late middle age (50) I am thinner and in better physical condition than 95% of the country. I've run up flights of steps and seen 20 year olds who can't keep up without wheezing and having to stop for breath.

A whole generation of parents seems to have dropped the ball. I see children who eat every meal at McDonalds, and are obese by age 6. I see children who badly need exercise driven around by their parents for distances easily walkable. The parents are enabling this problem through lack of parental responsibility for their own children. This is not rocket science: if you eat twice as many calories per day as you burn, you're going to get fat. How did we get so stupid as a nation that we no longer understand this? It seems like whacking one's self on the thumb with a hammer, and wondering why it hurts... over and over and over, never learning that it's our own swinging of the hammer that hurts. Not all the advertising in the world can MAKE you go to McDonalds. You have to chose to do so. You are free to choose NOT to do so, and this is the choice I've made all my life.

It's just... bewildering to see people make the opposite choice, eat several big macs per day coupled with massive high calorie sodas and large fries, and then bitch about getting fat. Stop doing that! If you're a parent, instil a sense of basic reality in your children, and don't feed them a diet of fast food when they're young enough to be dependent on you. It makes me sick to see so many parents hauling their 5 kids to fast food joints for every single meal.

Re:parental self control

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I believe that all you say is correct. Unfortunately, that also requires a lot of diligence and discipline from the parents. I have the impression that most folks are simply looking for an easy scapegoat:

• It's the fast food advertising's fault.
• It's the large drink size fault.
• It's the soda can's fault.

Until folks fess up and accept take the responsibility, and realize that they have to take the difficult road, this won't change. Someone or something else will always be the fault for their children's obesity.

Re:parental self control

[iviv66]

I have a similar story. When I was growing up, we pretty much never went to fast food restaurants. To keep someone from being exposed to fast food advertising is impossible, but I was simply never allowed to go there. To an extent that meant that on the extremely rare occasions I was allowed to eat there it seemed like this amazing treat (Clearly my taste buds were as immature as I was back then), but now I'm living on my own I have no desire to go and eat there. In short, people need to be better parents. If your children only grow up knowing McDonalds then of course that's where they will always want to eat.

Re:parental self control

[dkleinsc]

Meet the Scapegoat

Basically, the ad agencies have hired some very smart people who really understand kids to manipulate kids into demanding from their parents whatever stuff they're peddling, and part of what they're peddling is fast food. Parents can resist it for a while, but they've done the research and discovered that eventually the kids win these arguments. They target kids because kids' brains are easier to mess with than adults.

About the only real defense I'm aware of is keeping kids away from any TV other than Sesame Street and other obviously educational PBS shows.

Re:parental self control

[geekoid]

And I can dig up 10 people who ate fast food who are also skinny.
Weee anecdotes are fun!

Re:parental self control

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad that so many people, most of them apparently rather involved in this scapegoating, will believe you. As a parent, the most important thing you can do for your children, besides loving their other parent, is to say "NO" to them as often as possible. Some of us call this Vitamin N.

Is it easy in the short term? No. But in the long term, it beats having them get fat with diabetes -or- end up in jail -or- end up pole dancing -0r- hooked on drugs -or- become a democratic voter factory in a trailer park.

Re:parental self control

[jtseng]

As a parent, I totally accept responsibility for my kids' well-being and health. I am totally guilty of taking my kids through drive-thrus and letting them watch TV. The wife and I have adopted an American suburban, 2-car, 2-income, white-collar lifestyle with the kids also being swept up in the hectic pace that it entails.

By the time one of us gets to the child care center to get them (since the elementary school closes way before COB), they're whining how they're hungry, and on many days we need to get one of them to an after-school sports event. As much as we try to do the right thing, we're so physically and emotionally tired that we give in to doing the easy thing; we get them fast food and let them watch TV for an hour before we really sit down with them for homework time.

So am I an ideal parent? Do I make the absolutely best choices for them? No of course not. Unfortunately we cannot make those decisions in an ideal vacuum. I make decisions that still meet my kids' needs that still balances out with time constraints, external commitments, and, honestly, plain old selfishness to watch out for my own interests.

Re:parental self control

[fermion]

What we need to remember are the children now are three or four generations away from real food. It is acceptable to provide chips for lunch. It is acceptable to use processed cheese and Velveta. While people are moving to the edges from the center of the stores, they are looking for what appears to less processed food, not fresh fruits and vegetable. If they are going to have a home cooked meal, they are going use Bisquik or cake mix, rather than flour, eggs, and milk. Around here, to get big bags of beans and rice one much go to the hispanic or asian store.

My parents were older and were not exposed to the generation of television programming that told us we should eat processed food, so we do not. I look at my contemporaries and they, their children, all expect fast and processed food for all meals, even when the money is extremely limited. There is simply no expectation for a fresh healthy meal. I do not blame them, this is what they were taught. That milk has to pasteurized and homogenized. That good food is processed for their health. That picking something out of the ground, a carrot, a squash, an apple, is simply unhealthy. I recall walking though a garden, pickup pecans, and breaking them and eating them as a snack. My friends who were eating chips though I was crazy.

I do not blame the parents. This is current policy. Profits of major corporations depend on sales of calories to children. In the past forty years per capita candy consumption has doubled. When a young unwed mother is given counseling on how to care for her child, she is told to use formula. Now, I understand that there might be a drug issue with the mother, but when we are teaching that processed food is better than mothers milk, what hope to we have that they will feed the kids fresh healthy food. None.

Re:parental self control

[Reziac]

Maybe a lot of it is because a generation of helicopter parents have taken choice away from their kids, so their kids never learn to make good choices on their own -- they can only choose based on what Mommy and Daddy choose, which with today's overly-crammed schedules (not helped by the never-a-free-moment parenting style), increasingly tends to be whatever is quick and convenient, ie. fast food.

When I was a kid, back when kids did their own thing so long as they were home by supper, it was common to have a candy dish in the living room for guests, but the kids seldom if ever ate from it. It wasn't forbidden, it just wasn't important to the kids, who were too busy doing other things. You got stuffed on candy on Halloween but seldom ate it otherwise, both by learned choice and that we weren't given candy money by mommy to bribe us into good behaviour, either.

please

[vencs]

when I see my little nieces/nephews profusely excited at junk food, it feels bad but at the same time an inner voice says 'aren't these the one of the highest levels of excitement he/she is ever going to have, please don't let them down with big facts you know they cannot understand..'

PS: they hate me

Re:please

[Anonymous Coward]

Having an uncle whose a Slashdot user, I guess there isn't anyone out there who's really going to step up and help them get laid when the come of age right?

Re:please

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate society too!

Remind me again why I can't act like I'm 11 again?

Re:please

[Genda]

You can, hell, if you belong to the right family, you act 11 and become President.

Re:please

[Genda]

No, not even close. The highest possible level of excitement your nieces/nephews are ever going to have is the excitement of adventure, accomplishment, creation and invention, over coming a great challenge, seeking a great treasure and earning the right to hold it. Junk food doesn't even contain the most important thing that any meal should have and that is a sense of family, bonding, eating, loving, nourishing bodies and souls. That's why food is love. That's why fast food is predigested feces. If you aren't enjoying what you eat with people that you love, you are missing 98% of the point of putting food in your face. We need to bring back civilization, and dining is one of the oldest and most important civil expressions, the culinary arts are unique to each culture, and yet the same pattern abound. It is critically human to eat well, and share the experience with others. By the way, conversation about obesity are so twisted up in this culture. Our sense of what is beautiful is so messed up its disgusting. Here's a great revelation. Bon Appetit.

Re:please

[Anonymous Coward]

Health classes in k-12 should focus on proper eating habits. But it's much more than that. It's about poverty and the lack of time to cook proper meals let alone afford to buy healthier food.

But fat, thin, or regular sized, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether we're healthier, and since I'm not a doctor, I can't answer for anyone based on a picture. I don't know his or her body. I don't know how they feel when they move around. And if someone wants to be unhealthy, it should be their choice; the whole candle burning at both ends thing.

I think it's more than just fast-food logos being burned into our minds. Any commercials to which a child is exposed is going to have a lasting effect in my opinion. Think back to when you were a child. Any jingles you can recall?

Re:please

[geekoid]

"is the excitement of adventure, accomplishment, creation and invention, over coming a great challenge, seeking a great treasure and earning the right to hold it. "
people need to learn to enjoy that. Just so you know.

" That's why fast food is predigested feces."
what abunch of shit. Seriously, anyone who lumps all things together like that has no argument.
There are many fast food places that are far more healthier then the perception.

", and dining is one of the oldest and most important civil expressions"
bullshit.
". It is critically human "
the is a meaningless phrase.

Well, people where fat in the past and painted, clearly since it was in the past, it was better. herp, derp.

Re:please

[Anonymous Coward]

Your nieces/nephews might be excited by the prospect of some junk food, but it's not even close to the highest level of excitement he/she is ever going to have and it wouldn't matter if it was.

Think about your own childhood for a minute. Do you remember the junk food you ate? Of course not... but you were just as excited about it at the time. Do you remember buying your first car? Your first kiss? The first time you got your ass kicked by a bully? The first time you wound up in the ER? Those were all exciting times (not necessarily happy excitement) which far surpassed the Whopper you ate when you were two.

Your niece and nephew will have those moments as well. A moment of excitement over the prospect of a treat is fun, but it's unlikely to have any real significance in your life and it won't be the highlight of your niece/nephew's life or the peak of their excitement (unless they die of e.coli after eating the burger).

So where are the healthy food companies?

[HockeyPuck]

Why isn't Whole Foods (who btw doesn't only sell healthy foods) advertising at the same rate at the fast food companies trying to burn into our childrens' minds that broccoli and carrots are "extra yummy"...

Maybe if cauliflower and turnips were wrapped like a xmas present similar to a hamburger and put in a colorful Happy Meal box, kids would be clamoring for vegetables as well.

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because cauliflowwer and turnips are not as addictive as fat + cheeze + sugar.
So they are not only manipulating behaviour, but they are manipulating it toward
a bad addiction.

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[X0563511]

Because cauliflower and turnips taste at best mediocre, even as an adult? You actually expect a child to LIKE that?

At least pick vegetables that taste good.

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[Mindcontrolled]

Cauliflower and turnips taste mediocre, even for adults, because they are routinely murdered in the kitchen. Learn to cook, guys.

May I present cauliflower lifted to an acceptable culinary level?

Break it into small parts, get rid of large stems. Blanch quickly, cool in ice water. I still needs to have crunch, not some evil mushy texture. There you got your basics for good cauliflower.Now we go on.

1) simple and healthy: Toss with some spring onions and a light vinaigrette. Serve cold. Tasty salad.

2) Decadent and not so healthy: Put them in small portion sized baking dishes. Mix creme fraiche, cream, egg yolk, roquefort. Season with salt, a dash of lemon juice, a pinch of cayenne pepper. Pour the mixture on the cauliflower. Bake until browned over. Cauliflower fit to be served in a truly upscale restaurant.

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[tibit]

I don't know what you do to your cauliflower, man. RIP, poor cauliflower. It tastes great unless you rape it in the kitchen. Don't rape your food ;)

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[X0563511]

I've had it done well. I just don't like the texture or taste broccoli or cauliflower have - from raw to mush.

I suppose I make up for it by liking white cabbage and Brussels sprouts?

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[tibit]

Properly done broccoli and cauliflower should be crunchy :) Yes, it's a fine line before it turns to mush, needs a bit experimenting to figure it out. Like all cooking.

Your liking of white cabbage and Brussels sprouts makes up for it, yep :)

I like all of those, and spinach, and other vegy stuff, and I'm nowhere near being a vegetarian. Fava beans with bacon, mmmm.

Re:So where are the healthy food companies?

[X0563511]

Sounds like me :)

I don't cook though (laziness) - my lack of veggies is not that I don't like them, but that nobody as a good fast and cheap way to get them ready-to-eat. I -like- healthy foods, I just can't be bothered to prepare them.

Also: spinach (and 'spring greens' mixes) for the win. Screw iceberg lettuce.

Won't children please think of the someone?

[istartedi]

Your parents are worried. Come on kids. Do it for them.

poorly controlled study?

[king neckbeard]

From TFA

The study, conducted at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the University of Kansas Medical Center, selected 120 popular food and non-food brands, including McDonald's and Rice Krispies, and BMW and FedEx.

Were there brands that kids would care about shown as well, or just brands that they happen to know? I don't really see FedEx lighting up the pleasure center in a kid's brain, but Toys'R'Us or Mattel might. Other listed logos from the study are the Target bulls-eye and the Energizer Bunny. I might expect the bunny to cause a little bit of pleasure, but the cuteness of bunnies is balanced with the boringness of batteries.

Re:poorly controlled study?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for that detail, you have to read the study. However, they tried to find out if the logos triggered their appetite. Honestly, that would not happen with FedEx with me. Nevertheless, you need the study to find out. Most likely Toys'R'Us is among the 120 brands. However, I cannot get the article for free (strange research should be available to the public).

http://cas.umkc.edu/psychology/brain/publications.html#all

Re:poorly controlled study?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. In my case I've noticed that even as an adult I still get excited whenever I see the UPS logo. Context: I grew up in a very rural setting so distant relatives had to send birthday presents by mail. Having the UPS truck pull into the driveway was better than hearing the ice cream truck.

Re:poorly controlled study?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't question the study, it ways what people want to hear!

Re:poorly controlled study?

[s0nicfreak]

My family buys many things from Amazon and my kids have never been to Toys R Us (and we don't watch commercials so there would be no association from there)... the Fed Ex & UPS logs would probably light up their pleasure centers while Toys R Us would not. And my 2 year old *loves* batteries, while the other kids I'd guess would associate them with playing video games, so I could see the Energizer logo even without the bunny lighting up their pleasure centers more than Toys-R-Us...

I see your point, but kids do not live in a bubble where there are only bunnies and toys; kids of today order things online and/or see their parents ordering things online, play video games, use computers, etc.

This is common no matter the symbol or era

[assemblerex]

If ancient times, it was the grape, honey and figs.

the parent!

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent aginst a fast food logo now, the why never thinking. Children, the popular brand will rise marketed under nonfood brand, but hard avoiding burger and fry so is no fault of them. Nothing remain, nothing costed but difficulty and obese. It harm knee from excess carry wieght, unless thinner while child or young, also harming heart and brain. Heart attacks and strokes will happen after the rising diets eating ifen.

Don't worry...

[Black Parrot]

When they reach puberty the logos will be replaced by other images, which they can easily find on the internet.

Re:Don't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bacon? o.o

Re:Don't worry...

[Grayhand]

When they reach puberty the logos will be replaced by other images, which they can easily find on the internet.

Like Playboy Bunnies?

Re:Don't worry...

[RivenAleem]

No, bare, naked circuit boards, stripped and un-crimped network cables and/or long hard stick of RAM (depending on your preferences ofc)

oh, and lolcats.

Re:Don't worry...

[Issarlk]

At least facebook and farmville won't make them fat.

Re:Don't worry...

[king neckbeard]

A sedentary lifestyle is a major factor in obesity.

Nothing New

[r0kk3rz]

It's already a well known fact that the reward centres of people brains can be manipulated into firing in anticipation of a reward

Nothing to see here, new generation!

[Anonymous Coward]

All you want is a Pepsi...

oAuuuuuuuuuuA
Auuoooou(##)uA
IoouuuuuuuuooI
IoooooooouuuuI
IooooooooioiuI
Io.::::.oIuIoI
I::::ooo:uuioI
I;,,;;;;;IuIuI
Ioo;;;;ooioioI
IooooooooIuIuI
IoooooooouuuoI
VooooooooIuIuV
oVuuuuuuuuuuV

Just one Pepsi!

Hippies

[tbird81]

So some losers who are ideologically opposed to corporations do a study showing the results they want, and drawing the conclusion they intended to make at the start.

Obviously a kid is going recognise McDonalds over FedEx! WTF?! How is this research? I know autism can be difficult to diagnose, but if your child goes wild over the FedEx logo - they have autism.

Kids enjoy eating certain foods, kids enjoy playing, kids often like being around mum or dad. Is it such a crime that kids enjoy going to McDonalds? As long as you only take them there for a special occasion, what's the problem? It's the parents who feed them that shit every day with the issue.

Re:Hippies

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem confused... ....losers who are ideologically opposed to corporations

seems to imply that they are losers because they seem to think a corporation(s) can be bad

------feed them that shit

  referring to McDonalds' (a corporation) food, implying it is
bad corporation for providing shit food (unless your definition of a good corporation is one the provides shit food), which by your own logic makes you
the very loser you seem to bash...

Bravo

Re:Hippies

[prefec2]

You obviously didn't read the study or read the linked articles. They used 120 brands, the journalist picked some out of them. Most likely on the basis of a personal preference. And yes for a good study you also have to add logos, which fall in the category "should not produce a response", otherwise you cannot argue that the response to McDonald's is not a normal reaction to recognizing logos.

You are just a damn flamebait, who does not like, that corporate practices in marketing are contra productive for society. Honestly, get over it. The neo-liberal concept is just an ideology just like communism, socialism or any other economic concept. They are artificial and all use oversimplification when it comes to humans, the environment or model processes. As a modern human, you should know that there are limits to all of those concepts and they should not be overstretched. Especially they should not be turned into an ideology, where everything that sheds negative light on your idea is bad and must be fought. It is you ideology which has the problem, not your study.

Re:Hippies

[Mashiki]

It's a poorly controlled research study. Let's be realistic here, the majority of people on /. ate the same stuff 25-35 years ago that kids are eating today. The only difference is what? Ads might have gotten a big flashier. The food portions in the boxes have gotten smaller, and what you buy has shrunk in size when you get that 1/4 pounder hamburger.

I don't crave anything anymore than what I did then, and my parents indulged us as kids too. Oddly we don't eat out other than maybe once every two weeks if that as a treat to ourselves. The difference is as you said, parents who simply feed it to kids every day. Moderation is the key, much like kids who sit on their backsides and go DUURRRrrrrrr...at the TV/computer/etc. I honestly hate mc donalds well outside of their fillet o'fish sandwhiches, which are pretty tasty.

Re:Hippies

[tbird81]

No. You would not want to eat their food daily, but that doesn't mean they're bad.

They provide a product and a service, nothing wrong with that. I'll have it occasionally, but I know it's not particularly healthy.

I don't see what the problem with this point of view is.

Re:Hippies

[tbird81]

Get over what?

No kidding.

[mosb1000]

I'm getting hungry just reading about it.

Re:No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing can be said of music. Have you ever noticed that a fast, upbeat, often heavy bass, song on the radio causes you to drive faster especially on the highway? In heavy traffic I generally listen to news radio, talk radio, or country music - in the order presented - which calms me...well except for some talk radio. If it gets too intense I can always listen to some Justin Townes Earle or Steve Earle.

Small Sample Size

[ohnocitizen]

They tested the kids on Toddlers and Tiaras. Specifically they tested Honey Boo Boo like 50 times.

What about the parents?

[SciCom Luke]

I always had the faint residual of an idea there is such a thing as 'parents' who come in to the picture when children are about to do something that is not good for them. That these carbon based lifeforms have a function of guiding children through early life, which includes warning them of marketing bastards and teaching them to think for themselves before they believe anything to see and hear and read. But that idea might be caused by social phenomena of the previous century...

Like cocaine addicts: the dopamine D2 receptor

[Anonymous Coward]

Rats fat on junk food would rather starve than eat healthy, Scripps Florida study suggests

Maybe it shouldn't be allowed to sell stuff like coke...

A "Clockwork Orange" treatment can fix that . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Condition those kids get nauseous and suicidal at the sight of fast food logos.

Make sure you have child lock doors on your car, in case they decide to jump out.

Our lives would be much easier without choice and free will.

"Conform to the norm!"

Because the 10 seconds...

[Spectrumanalyzer]

...of pleasure savoring the flavors of a juicy burger, makes the hours of obesity, farts and suffering seem like a walk in the park.

Re:A "Clockwork Orange" treatment can fix that . .

[iserlohn]

Funny you mention that. It seems that "marketers" that have discovered that free will was an illusion long ago, hence this story.

We've been exposed to this clockwork orange treatment for much longer than you think. Logos of brands flashing before our eyes and all...

A story one of my professors told me.

[Anonymous Coward]

She stopped allowing her children to watch broadcast television. She would buy DVD's of tv shows, but not broadcast television.

Without commercials, when Christmas came, she asked her kids what they wanted, and they weren't horrible little monsters, (like I was when I was a kid... God... my Christmas lists...). Toy companies know that most toys are bought because kids act like little monsters until they get what they want.

Kids are so impressionable that it's pretty much brain washing, and this pretty much confirms it.

Emotional and social - somewhat mindless

[Anonymous Coward]

And no amount of advertising can force you to buy something. It can let you know that thing exists, but you still get to make your own choice. Humans are not mindless drones.

Advertizing influences us. We are social creatures who evolved to fit in with others. I garanty you - without any doubt whatsoever - that there are things you purchased that you would never have purchased without the advertizing. And if I asked you about it, you would have some sort of "reason" why you purchase that item - parroting much of the advertizer's "message".

People make most of their decisions based on emotion. Very rarely do folks sit down and do a cost/benefit analysis, pros and cons, etc ... about a purchase - it takes too long. It's easier and more gratifying for that quick indulgence.

The women who buy very large SUVs "because they have children and they need the space" - they have only 2. My parents got 3 kids around in a Chevy Vega. But these days people need gigantic light trucks for their TWO kids. Gee, I wonder what gave them that idea? Or let's look at the Mini in the States. When it first came out the advertizers had two very masculine men doing crazy shit with them. Why? They were afraid that the Mini would be considered a chick car like the Volkswagen Bug and the Porsche Boxster.

And there's religion - the most manipulative thing ever created by man.

No sir, we may not be mindless, but we sure are easily manipulated.

Re:Emotional and social - somewhat mindless

[Anonymous Coward]

So ban everything; something might manipulate us. If our minds are truly that weak, then we either need to accept our weaknesses or futilely try to ban everything that might make us more likely to do something.

The latter is just ridiculous, by the way.

Re:Emotional and social - somewhat mindless

[digitalsolo]

The women who buy very large SUVs "because they have children and they need the space" - they have only 2. My parents got 3 kids around in a Chevy Vega. But these days people need gigantic light trucks for their TWO kids. Gee, I wonder what gave them that idea?

I am having this exact battle with my wife currently. She has a 4 door Subaru Impreza; not a large car by any means, but not particularly tiny either. We are going to replace it this spring with (assuming I win the battle, which I am likely to) a Subaru Legacy. This is a BIG full size car (not big by US standards, but as a Japanese marque goes, it's huge). She firmly believes she needs a small SUV/crossover (aka fancy looking minivan) because our son's stuff takes too much space, and if/when we have a second child, how could you EVER move two kids and their goods in a CAR?

Forget the fact that I grew up with my family having a Buick Skylark (late 80's style, not a big car, and not very useful space) and a pickup truck (2 door, bench seat) with 2 kids. We didn't have any trouble. I think it's mostly that she has never needed to pay attention to making intelligent use of space, and packing only what is needed, and of course, everyone else has an SUV. Good for them, I'll take 30+ MPG, thank you kindly.

NON STORY.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can this be called a repost of an older story, in which a guy named Pavlov got some dogs to salivate in response to ringing a bell?

The only difference here is that the bell being rung is a Taco. (A Taco Bell?)

Re:A "Clockwork Orange" treatment can fix that . .

[prefec2]

Being triggered by conditioning through experience has nothing to do with free will. Do not confuse impulse with free will.

Second, your idea would lead to high rates of children suicides, as these logos are everywhere. Especially large cities would be uninhabited (if parents are included) or at least the kids would be all gone and the US would die out in one generation. I guess there are some people in the Middle East who find that idea quite tempting.

The best thing would be a restriction on advertising. And the truth about the food. Also the conditioning for fast food happens already at the time of breast feeding, when mothers eat fast food, it ends up in the milk and therefor in the baby. So if mothers eat wrong the kids eat wrong. The trigger with the logo is added to that later.

Stupid....

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA "selected 120 popular food and non-food brands, including McDonald's and Rice Krispies, and BMW and FedEx." - this is a really stupid study. Why would anyone's brain (especially a child or 10-14 year old kid) have their pleasure or appetite center be stimulated by FedEX?

Yeah... they are so succesful

[SmallFurryCreature]

That I rooted my android devices to install an ad-blocker. Works perfectly, ad-free.

That I don't watch TV, or rather not broadcast TV. I download the TV-series I want, from torrent sites where I block the ads.

I have multiple layers of web ad-blocking, priv-proxy, ad-blocker, ghostery and finally opera's own rather good content blocker.

I use a government friend who has access to digests created from newspapers for polticians, ad free newspapers.

I don't buy DVD's because of their forced ads.

I don't use streaming services that display ads. Youtube is very easily manipulated to show zero ads.

I have my groceries delivered so I don't have to go to the supermarket and deal with the visual bombardment created to get me to buy stuff I don't want.

I do my tech shopping from pricewatch lists and real user reviews, so I don't have to deal with advertising on product sites and "pro" reviews sites whose product is paid for reviews.

THAT is how effective advertisers have become. I didn't used to mind ads but over the last decade they have managed to stimulate my brain into a rabid hatred of even the tiniest exposure to advertising.

And I am not alone. If advertising really worked, they wouldn't have to force it on us. The low point apparently happening in New York were kids were forced to watch commercials in exchange for school. It was a VPRO documentary so it probably was true (they are left-wing but to serious to make stuff up).

Why do you think you can't skip the commercials on DVD's? Because the advertisers are confident you enjoy watching them and want the information? No, because advertisers know all their tricks are useless in persuading people to watch something they don't want to.

Re:Yeah... they are so succesful

[Anonymous Coward]

Your aversion to ads is even worse than mine! I didn't think it was possible. My friends tease me for avoiding ad content because I don't want either the intrusion or the "information."

Nah

[SmallFurryCreature]

We didn't have TV at my house until I was in my teens.

And well... I am the result.

There goes your theory eh?

Re:Nah

[Genda]

Not having 30 pound of bricks strapped to your back doesn't guarantee you will be a great swimmer, but having those bricks strapped on pretty much assures you ain't going anyway but down.

Re:Nah

[operagost]

First you have to prove that television is the mental equivalent of 30 pounds of bricks.

Obesity produces diabetes epidemic in India

[andersh]

India is bracing for a massive surge in type 2 diabetes, with credible estimates putting the number of sufferers in the next 20 years at more than 100 million.

It is a frightening phenomenon that threatens to overwhelm the country's health system, according to a leading diabetes specialist in India.Between them, India and China now have more than half of the world's type 2 diabetics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/obesity-produces-diabetes-epidemic-in-india/4148616

Re:Obesity produces diabetes epidemic in India

[Mindcontrolled]

But this doesn't coincide with the introduction of white rice, does it?

The Thin-Fat Indian

[andersh]

I will also add that the BBC showed an interesting documentary a short while ago about the cause(s) and effects on the "Thin-Fat Indian".

This document by Prof C.S. Yajnik MD, FRCP is very detailed in its analysis of the genetics differences between Indians and European ethnic people:

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/india/CYajnik.pdf

Thin-Fat

[andersh]

No, it doesn't exactly, if you see my second post, it goes into detail about the possible causes for why and how Indians and other Asians differ from European ethnic populations.

I'm no expert in this field I do however remember the recent BBC documentary on the subject which I believe discussed the fact that the typical diet was in fact leading to similar health problems without the outward appearance of obesity. How this relates to rice I'm not certain I can remember. There were not only dietary, but also genetic differences (see below).

If I remember correctly a lot of Indian children were in fact born underweight at birth, but also so-called "thin-fat", without the outward appearance of such problems. They don't appear to be obese on the outside, but their insides were remarkably similar to Western diabetes sufferers. The dietary conditions later in life leads to weight increase and stronger symptoms of the disease/condition.

See the document I linked to for more information:

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/india/CYajnik.pdf

Re:Thin-Fat

[Mindcontrolled]

Thanks for the link. I'll have too look deeper into that when I got more time. Interesting stuff. In the end, as a biochemist, I think we are dealing with something more complex than usually presented. I am somewhat tired of the simplistic explanations along the lines of "it's the processed carbohydrates!", "it's the trans-fats" etc., etc.

Purely anecdotal, I lost about 15 pounds since I stopped using any "industrial" food and started to prepare basically anything apart from classic craft products like bread, butter, cheese, sausage for myself. And I am not exactly cooking "healthily" - I am mostly doing classic french, so out comes the butter and the duck fat and the olive oil - make of it what you will, I haven't seen a decent explanation for the french or mediterranean paradox yet.

It's simple!

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel an aversion to fat or obese people. I also think kids need to be hit more often. They love being hit, and god knows I love hitting them. Especially the fat ones.

Diets and Genes

[andersh]

Yes, it's very interesting, I only have a laymans understanding of the subject(s) involved. My degrees are all in other areas.

What I have understood however is that the genetic component may be far more important than the diet itself for individuals. The Mediterranean diet may only work well for people with [that or] similar genetic makeup and/or environmental conditions (climate, eating patterns, etc). Consuming butter heavy, low carb diets (Ketogenic) has recently become a fad here in Scandinavia. It even lead to a butter "shortage" before Christmas due to our agricultural policy (protectionist/self-sufficiency).

From what I have read and seen a lot of industrial food products in the US may have everything from trans-fats, [traces of] anti-biotics and growth hormones and frequently contains High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The variation of products with corn derivatives is incredible, from beer to dry-wall! We know long-term consumption of HFCS leads to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats (triglycerides).

That's why I'm thankful that HFCS is not common in food products here in Scandinavia, even our [non-light] sodas use real sugar. It may be part of the obesity problem, in addition to the lack of exercise.

I remember reading one particularly interesting [American] study on the effects of poor nutrition, lack of healthy alternative food sources and polluted natural environments on the urban poor, and how it effectively locked them in poverty, poor health, low education, unemployment and crime. A cycle that is very hard to break. Think of all the money save and problems we could avoid in health care, welfare and crime prevention!

Re:Diets and Genes

[Mindcontrolled]

Yes, thankfully I am not in the US either - Germany rather. We, too, have been spared the HFCS. I totally agree on the societal impact of poor nutrition. More than that, I think it is a quite scary loss of simple cultural techniques that many people are not able to prepare a meal from scratch these days.

Anyway - greetings to the Northern Neighbours! You may keep that SurstrÃmming, though ;)

Re:Diets and Genes

[dunkelfalke]

Sorry to disappoint you, but we've got HFCS all the same here, only it is called "Glucose-Fructose-Sirup" in Germany. Another similar ingredient is inverted sugar sirup, which is basically everywhere in processed foods.

Re:Diets and Genes

[Mindcontrolled]

I am aware that HFCS does exist here - it does not, however, permeate our foodways as much as in the US.

Re:Diets and Genes

[tibit]

It's a non-issue. Get over it. You've bought into HFCS hysteria. All sugars are equally good or bad. Limit the calorie intake and you'll be fine, HFCS or no HFCS.

Re:Diets and Genes

[Mindcontrolled]

There's the matter of taste. They are not remotely equally good or bad. Also, there is a difference in the metabolism of fructose and glucose. But go on and gorge on crap.

Re:Diets and Genes

[tibit]

Yeah, and that difference is interesting if you're a chemist. It's immaterial otherwise. Fructose is a tad sweeter per Joule of energy, BTW, so you can use less of it compared to glucose to have the same perceived sweetness.

Food for Thought

[andersh]

Hello neighbour! Wie geht's? Sometimes I think we should have national flag icons next to our usernames :) I much prefer my Norwegian Lutefisk anyway, that Surströmming can stay in Sweden, hehe ;)

The problem is obviously spreading and becoming class based, so we're likely to see the same sort of problems here in Europe eventually. It is scary to imagine a future where people only know supermarket "ready meals". Food prices may be higher here where I live, but at least it's produced in my country to acceptable standards. I can only hope that you, the members of the EU, manage to keep the American GM foods and their additives out of your/our products. Tschüß!

http://www.visitnorway.com/en/What-to-do/Food-and-drink/Popular-Christmas-food-in-Norway/

Anyone else think duh?

[BluPhenix316]

From just reading the summary, my first thought was DUH. It's the parents fault for allowing their kids to be manipulated but that is the whole point. It is the same thing as when Camel cigarettes was using the cartoon camel to advertise. The target demographic is painfully obvious. It is especially bad with McDonald's though because they use the rewards system in their advertisements and products. If you eat with us, you will get a "cool toy". We have a playground for you to have fun in. Kids are raised and learn what they learn from the rewards system. If I get good grades I get rewarded. If I do something bad I get punished. To top it off, they are advertising with cartoon characters. It is still the parents fault though. If I see a guy who is obviously a pedophile, i'm not going to allow my kids to go play with him or get near him. If I did, and something happened, would it be the pedophile's fault or my own? I think it would be my own.

Many never had self control

[trout007]

In the not so distant past (40+ years ago) food especially restaurant food was pretty expensive. People didn't eat at McDonald's every day because they couldn't afford it no matter how poor your self control was.

What has happened is we have become significantly richer and even the poorest people in the US can afford to eat at McDonald's at every meal. The same people that had no self control can now stuff their faces to the point they are 400 lbs. Some of this is market driven and some is the result of farm subsidies that pay farmers to grow for calorie rich nutrient poor foods.

Solution

[Legion303]

Kill all marketers with a hot poker.

Missing the point

[Murdoch5]

This has been going on for year, I can remember being 5 and seeing fast food commercials all over the TV, As did all the kids I grew up with. The real issue at hand is the lazy parents who instead of making dinner just jump in the car and order 4 happy meals to go. A kid can see all the advertisements in the world but with no access to money the kid can't act. If people are so concerned by this maybe the blame should be focused on the enablers that are handing the kids the fast food in the first place, the only issue is the enablers are the parents! So blame the parents not the company's.

Re:Missing the point

[geekoid]

CLUE: Kids grow up into adults.
that means the adults they become are HARD WIRED to buy fast food. By hard wired, I mean they get a dopemine and serotonin kick. Which is 2/3s of the reason we do anything.

Think about that a bit.

Re:Missing the point

[Murdoch5]

Not true at all, I'm an adult and I don't go out and binge on fast food. None of my friends go out and binge on fast food, my parents don't go out and binge on fast food, my family doesn't. So actually that is completely wrong, you only crave what you get all the time. Parents need to take a stand and stop going out for dinner every night.

Agree

[dpak1170]

Parents stop feeding your kids this shit.

Sensationalism Called...

[Anonymous Coward]

It and hyperbole are getting tired of doing all the work for you.

It's not permanent

[Vermonter]

I grew up loving McDonalds food. Not that I got to eat it very often, but when I did I loved it. Then I ended up having to work at McDonalds for a year in between jobs to make ends meet. After gaining about 25 lbs from eating there on my breaks, I decided to stop eating it. After going a full year without, I no longer crave the food there. Sure, I would still eat the occasional McDouble or 4 piece nugget if I needed a quick snack, but I'd have to be pretty much driving right by one without a better option in sight. The same goes for soda. In college, I drank tons of ginger ale. I would crave that stuff like no tomorrow, drinking sometimes 6 cans in a day. Then when I needed to lose weight I gave up soda, and now not only do I not get the cravings, but I can't even drink soda- I've regained my sensitivity to sugar and soda is now far too sweet.

Well Duh...

[Hagaric]

The sole purpose of corporate logos is to be instantly recognizable and stimulate people to purchase.. in the terminology of the article, that is *exactly* the same as "burning it into the brain". Congratulations, we have ascertained that McDonalds marketing works, we never knew that before..

Take responsibility for your actions

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 41 and overweight. I weigh 235 @ 5 foot10. I am big everywhere (24 inch neck) so my gut doesn't look too out of place but that's not the point.

In 1988 as a senior in HS I weighed about 165 and when I got out of the military in 1998 I was about 195. As time went on, I exercised less and ate less healthy and more. Who is to blame? Myself. Stop blaming fast food, your neighbor, your job, your parents, the economy. People eat fast food because they enjoy it, if they enjoy it, what is the problem? Take this a step further.. Just about everything a person decides to do is because it makes them feel better than doing something else. If I drive fast, it because I do it because I don't enjoy driving slow. If I drink alcohol, I do it because I enjoy it better than drinking a glass of water. If I light up a cigarette, it is because I enjoy it better than not lighting one up. People feel bad for you and like to blame others for your bad habits but you ARE making those decisions because you want to! People rarely do things they do not want to do. Take fast food for example. You have tons of choices. You may NEVER eat at Taco Bell but you go to Burger King twice a week. If you were capable of completely avoiding Taco Bell because you don;t like it or want it, you should be able to make a decision to completely avoid Burger King and completely avoid fast food as well. You are capable of making decisions based on what you like and don;t like. If you don't avoid it, it is because you want it and enjoy it. Not because of a fucking logo or a commercial fooled you and sucked you in.
   

Self control in general

[xtal]

Genes play a big factor, but most of it is thermodynamics.

Eat less than you burn. You will lose weight and stay skinny. Eat more, you will get fat. Period.

A collary of that is you can eat mainly fast food and not get fat. I've done this for periods of my life when I was very busy. Healthy? Probably not. It is not about the type of food, it is about the CALORIES. The food energy. That's it.

Yes there are a myriad of reasons why some people gain more weight than others, and a myriad of reasons why some lose it quicker. Ultimately, you have free will, and you choose to do these things. Make better choices and you'll be healthier. Those choices may be difficult, sure. Suck it up princess.

That message is lost along the way.

Re:Self control in general

[geekoid]

Also water retention. Mostly that applies to women, and it's a small bit, but don't discount it.

"Ultimately, you have free will,"
maybe. OTOH, when people who have the dopemine relationship to fast food grow up, they don't have the tools to deal with breaking that dopemine connect. If the connection is strong enough, the will never be able to break it without intervention. Even then they might not be able to.

You're will isn't nearly as free as you think.
http://www.radiolab.org/2008/nov/17/is-free-will-really-free/

http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/

In other news ...

[johnlcallaway]

... a study has confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that bad parenting is the sole cause of obesity in kids. It has been proven that many kids eat at fast food restaurants but don't get fat because their parents limit their intake and make sure they get plenty of exercise by playing outside once in awhile.

The government can now remove all regulations on school lunches since parents are able to decide what is and isn't good for their children.

It has also confirmed that making bad choices is the sole cause of obesity in adults. Bloomberg has been slapped with an injunction to shut the fuck up and leave people alone.

Re:In other news ...

[geekoid]

That's a nice narrow middle class view you go there.

Unfortunately, the issue turns out to actually be more complex. YOU assume all parents are the same and that all parents are actually knowledgeable on the subject.

Re:In other news ...

[johnlcallaway]

And you assume that I felt all parents are the same, which I know for a fact is a wrong assumption. The issues is very simple, good parents who are knowledgeable and actually raise their kids probably on average don't have obese children. Parents who are not knowledgeable or just don't give a shit probably are more likely to have obese children, money has very little to do with obesity except that many poor people are that way because they aren't too bright and don't have too much and can't pay someone to raise their kids. Of course, how someone could be so stupid to think that giving their kids McDonald's every day is good for them or cheaper than cooking is hard to fathom. I think it's more likely they just don't give a crap and it's easier. Or still have an Old World mentality that a little fat on a kid is good.

I don't have an issue with the government providing educational information. I do have a problem with them meddling in things that punish the people who are doing the right thing (i.e. get their kids out to exercise so having McDonald's once a week isn't a big deal) in the hopes that they can influence those that don't give a shit.

Because they can't influence people that don't give a shit, because they don't give a shit. Meanwhile, those that do the right thing continue to have their freedoms slowly removed from them. But you are OK with that because you don't have kids or this doesn't impact you.

And I reject your implication that I have a middle class view. I make more money than that. And I've seen fat kids in all economic classes, I don't assume any kid is fat just because their parents are compartmentalized by some prejudiced people into a class based on wealth. I've known good and bad parents from many walks of life, all it takes is a selfish attitude to be a bad parent and no amount of money will ever fix that.

No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are telling me is that little kids learn to associate large easily identifiable icons with what they get there? Well Holy Shit. Next you're going to tell me they associate toilets with going to the bathroom, or fucking toy stores with toys. Hurray, you've just rediscovered Pavalovs work of only a mere century ago. You might have heard about his little known study involving dogs and bells.

Children aren't sensitive to advertising!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, I know. I'm a forty year old who has struggled with being overweight my entire life. Advertising did NOT program my brain to crave fast food. This is just ridiculous.

"Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onion on a sesame seed bun..."

Re:Children aren't sensitive to advertising!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look, a butthurt fatty!

Re:A "Clockwork Orange" treatment can fix that . .

[king neckbeard]

"Clockwork orange treatment" means an extreme form of aversion therapy. That's not in any applicable here.

It's not the image

[geekoid]

itself.

There was an experiment. They would measure the Dopamine level, give the animal a sweet drink, then measure it again. as expect, after the drink, the Dopamine would rise up.
After time, the Dopamine would increase when the animal heard the door open. then when they heard foots steps, then all by itself at the specific time of, even if no one was coming.
So that's what we see. The answer is not to give the kids fast food and break the expectation.

Citations:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1120460

Great radiolab episode on this subject:
http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/seeking-patterns/

COOKIES are also associated with pleasure...

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I'm fairly certain that cookies were burned into the pleasure centers of my brain at an early age, too. Should we blame Nestle, or should we accept that a good parent doesn't feed their kid cookies every day, even if the kid wants it?

Obesity isn't a simple problem

[jellomizer]

Yes proper diet and exercise is the only real cure. However the problem is quite more complex than that.

Stress in peoples lives (People in poverty are in more stress) where they don't feel they have control in their lives. Causes us to take pleasure in the few areas we do have control in, what we can eat. Unfortunately the extra weight causes us to gain more weight and adds more stress, when we try to diet we are giving up our only emotional uplift, which makes dieting harder.

Culture, there are a lot of Fat people out there who goes, I want to join a Gym, however I need to lose 50 lbs first so I don't feel that out of place. Because you go to a gym to help loose weight, however you are in a place with fit people and you feel out of place, and if the people are openly critical to you, it makes it harder. Lets laugh at the Fat guy on the treadmill, that will help him come to the gym more often to get better.

Helicopter parents. Your kids need to be watched all the time, they can't go outside and play, without the parents (who sometimes need to do something else). because of fear of kids being mean to each other or the 1 and 100000 chance that a molester will be there to take the kid away.

Re:Obesity isn't a simple problem

[somersault]

Yeah stress is an interesting one, because eating bad increases stress, which causes your body to store a higher ratio of fat around your abdomen, and also makes it harder to sleep. Sleeping less also causes you to gain weight and makes you even more stressed. So basically it all links together and can be a negative spiral.

Once you know how good it feels to be eating well, the idea of eating crap for an "emotional uplift" seems pretty silly.. because you know it will just make you feel worse later. Maybe I'm different though, I seem to find it easier than most to put off short term gain for a long term goal.. at least, while I'm sober :p

The "personal responsibility" argument

[digitalaudiorock]

Sure, parents don't necessarily need to let their kids eat this stuff (assuming they actually can control that all the time), and of course nobody needs to eat it at all....but here's my problem with the knee-jerk personal responsibility argument:

If we choose to believe the obesity epidemic is all about personal responsibility (or lack thereof), are we saying that in the last few decades, Americans have somehow lost all will power and sense of responsibility?

If so, how do you explain that in that exact same time period, all three of drug use, alcohol use, and smoking have declined radically...with per-capita smoking being the lowest it's been since the 30s? Where's all that lack of will power with those? It wouldn't have to do with the fact that we're discouraging those, rather than marketing them to kids, let alone subsidizing they're production as we are with corn and the fast food industry.

Sure, in theory, nobody has to eat any of this stuff, but in practice that do...and like it or not policy does play a big part of it

Simple fix

[PPH]

Get some McDonald's bags and food containers. Fill them with chopped liver, onions and spinach. Then tell the kids you are bringing home some "yummy McDonald's food". Do this a couple of times and they'll scream like hell every time you slow down in front of the golden arches.

Re:Simple fix

[P-niiice]

Just use baby possums instead of food.

Did they figure this out..

[caveat]

..by superimposing brain scans and looking at them through a green filter?

Just Fast Food Logos? Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same can be said about any prominent logo like Mercedes, etc. That's why branding works so well.

Also, they seem to ignore the fact that PARENTS are the ones paying for this stuff most of the time. It's not like kids are out-of-control, independently wealthy consumers here.

In my administration.....

[P-niiice]

I'd have a special place against the wall for Advertisers. It will difficult wiring for all the HD cameras and lights, but the end results will look great during prime-time, especially with all the pyro and dancing girls afterwards.

Can we give it a Name

[ElitistWhiner]

Like ' subliminal advertising' then we can ban the damn thing and get back to picking berries and hunting for food

we are condemned to be free

[micahraleigh]

As Sartre said, we are condemned to be free.

Food doesn't make people fat. People make their own selves fat.

The low fat/exercise paradigm is to blame

[swb]

Once we accept and refuse to question the low fat dietary paradigm coupled with the "energy balance" paradigm that pushes us to eat less and burn more calories, we end up with all kinds of crazy enemies.

Fast Food becomes the enemy because it's greasy, but not because most of what they serve has added sugar (the catsup is sky high in sugars) and much of the volume of a fast food meal are simple starches (big buns, french fries, sugary drinks).

Activities like video games become an enemy because you're "not burning enough calories" to use up the excess of what you've consumed.

What I find truly interesting are the cultural tie-ins to low fat/exercise. One of the core memes of Christianity is that there can be no redemption without suffering. This plays right into low fat/exercise. Redemption is weight loss. Food without fat and salt tastes terrible. There's part of your suffering. Eating less and being hungry? That's another part of your suffering. Exercise is the other part of the trinity of suffering, and it contributes to the effects of hunger and being tired, making that suffering increase.

And of course when this doesn't work, it's a failure of character. Weak morals. Lack of discipline. Gluttony. Sloth.

OMG What fucking morons people are becoming.

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary of the research,

when shown logos of food places children think of food
when shown logos of non-food places children do not think of food.

big big surprise.

Just another lefty study designed to prove the cause they are championing at the moment.

Ban Advertising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem solved.

California Ban Coming Soon!

[aaronfaby]

You can surely expect a law to be passed ASAP that will ban fast good restaurants from displaying logos in California.

It's chicken

[phorm]

Question a: What does he normally eat
Question b: What did he eat at KFC (assuming chicken, it wouldn't be so far out from the regular diet that he wouldn't like it)

I know people from other countries that come here and find many desserts etc too sweet. They do like candy, etc, but the syropy stuff that people often love in N. America is way too much for them.

Try feeding that same dude a Big Mac with salty fries and a Shamrock Shake.

I don't quite buy this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an alternative hypothesis: this is just normal brand recognition of places that are kid friendly (bright colors and free toys). Fast food, with all its fat, sugar, and salt, is chemically designed to be tasty, and kids are going to associate the logo with tasty food, so having an appitite doesn't surprise me in the least when they see these logos. To get a little freudian, the most pleasurable experiences kids that age are going to have are pooping, eating, and sleeping, so the pleasure center going off makes sense as well. Plus, who didn't love happy meal toys when they were little? I mean it was a free toy.

As far as the Non-food brands, I would be curious what brands they showed them. I bet you you could illicit a simliar response to the Fast Food logos if you showed kids the Spongebob Squarepants logo over, say, Target.

I am certainly not trying to defend fast food, but I'm critical of this study. I should also point out I haven't had a chance to read the actual write-up on the study yet, just the news story.

Right-Wing Commenters

[cgifool]

What's with the overwhelming number of comments from right-wing crazies?

Obesity

[eneville]

Obesity is just something to take the place of tobacco to kill off the population just before they're eligible to draw pension, but a little better on the economy since buying food employs more nationals (to stock/cook/deliver/process) the product. Just works better. Genius really. Once people realise they're too fat, they take up a gym routine they can't hope to keep. It's wonderful.

Cover and remove Ads

[bd580slashdot]

I'm not like that women in Snow crash who sanded the logo for the jeans she was wearing off the metal buttons but I do remove labels from containers in my home and usually use nice aesthetically pleasing or simple reused containers. My computer has the ad facing me on the screen bezel covered and the one on the lid too. I know that they paid money to put those there and wouldn't do so if they weren't making their money back. I don't want corporate ads in my house. I don't like to be imprinted. I try to avoids ads in the first place and I buy used. The corporations can pay me if they want me to advertise for them. Someone once said that advcertising is the penalty you pay for not being innovative enough. I do advertise for a few co-ops, businesses or products that I think are sustainable and ethical or honestly trying to be. The one down side is that when I go outside (I know, I know, I never leave my basement) I realize how much of our visual environment and space has been captured by corporations without our permission. After all the problem is that people other than ourselves are making the decisions that effect our lives, and that applies to regulating advertising too. Oh yeh ... I used to be an extreme anti-corporate and materialism type. I spent four years without using money.

People should go watch "The Corporation"

How to escape the pleasure trap

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
"Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means that for several weeks, most people attempting this change will experience a reduction in eating pleasure. This is why modern foods present such a devastating trap -- as most of our citizens are, in effect, "addicted" to artificially high levels of food stimulation! The 30-to-90-day process of taste re-calibration requires more motivation -- and more self-discipline -- than most people are ever willing to muster.
    Tragically, most people are totally unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to comfortably maintain healthful dietary habits -- and to keep away from the products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasure -- thinking that the process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation -- and how to master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness."

Scientific Discourse on HFCS

[andersh]

That's unfair, it's not a "non-issue". There is some hysteria as usual, but there are valid reasons for avoiding HFCS. It's not just another sugar, but it does depend on who you listen to. I'm by no means a fanatic, but I have read my fair share of research on the subject. According to research from one the world's most prestigious Universities, Princeton;

"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. "

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly."

"Rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly.

The central issue being the amount of adipose tissue (fat around the belly).

Adipose tissue or body fat is loose connective tissue composed of adipocytes. It is technically composed of roughly only 80% fat; fat in its solitary state exists in the liver and muscles. Adipose tissue is derived from lipoblasts. Its main role is to store energy in the form of lipids, although it also cushions and insulates the body.

Far from hormonally inert, adipose tissue has in recent years been recognized as a major endocrine organ, as it produces hormones such as leptin, estrogen, resistin, and the cytokine TNF. Moreover, adipose tissue can affect other organ systems of the body and may lead to disease. Obesity or being overweight in humans and most animals does not depend on body weight, but on the amount of body fat—to be specific, adipose tissue.

However I did read a recent report from Harvard (2012) that stated there was no difference in how the human body digested sugars (HFCS or not). The case is certainly not clear, but I do not want to be a "guinea pig" to increase some corporation's profit.

Sources:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientists-conclude-high-fructose-corn-syrup-should-not-be-blamed-for-obesity-170179136.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue

Re:Scientific Discourse on HFCS

[tibit]

Rat models for human metabolism and digestion are quite poor. Sure, they may have lucked out in that one case, but I'd not assign much credence to it at the moment. And no, I don't have any stock or other interest in corn syrup anything.

The United States has it's own propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
  - Crispin Glover
- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/

Testing On Rattus Norvegicus

[andersh]

Thanks for replying, it's an interesting subject and I welcome opposing views.

Are rats poor models? I'm not sure if they are in this case, as it's not my area, but almost all human genes known to be associated with diseases have counterparts in the rat genome, confirming that the rat is an excellent model for many areas of medical research.

There are reasons for why we sequenced the rat and mice genome after decoding the [complete] human genome.

While I won't claim the fact that the United States is the "fattest" country in the world is evidence for any link between HFCS and obesity it's certainly worth noting. Whatever is to blame it's having a large-scale impact. Technically the US is 3rd place in 2012 behind two insignificant, micro-nations where the Pacific Islander population is genetically predisposed to obesity, diabetes etc.

No worse than the cross being burned into the fear

[kalqlate]

...centers of children's brains. To paraphrase the original article: This is concerning because religious evangelists (including religious parents) tap into those portions of the brain long before children develop self-control, and most religions--nay, all religions--marketed to kids are high in lies and manipulation.

burger chef

[Anonymous Coward]

is still burned into mine. "big chef and one"