Thank you, I was about to speak about the whole carb thing but you said it better than I was about to.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Food, Fat, Obesity and Airplanes - a question
- Thread starter doublestop
- Start date
Thank you, I was about to speak about the whole carb thing but you said it better than I was about to.
I heard this on a radio show and thought it was a sensible solution:
1. At the check in desk you have a model airline seat that passengers must sit in when they are issued their boarding pass. If they don't fit, they have to either have booked a second seat (in which case they don't have to do the test) or otherwise pay for a second seat if available. This is a similar principle to carry on luggage.
2. At the security screening there are two lines, one for people with two seats and one (or many) for people with one seat. The metal detector in the single seat lines is no wider than an aircraft seat. If you can't fit through it, you are sent back to the check in to purchase your second seat. This picks up those who use carry on baggage only.
3. People who have paid for a second seat up front simply check in without the test and go through the designated security screening que without having to potentially be "rejected".
Seems fairly reasonable to me. I am all for a volumetric weight test for person and baggage for airline ticketing, but I think we are a long way from having the technology to do that effectively yet.
1. At the check in desk you have a model airline seat that passengers must sit in when they are issued their boarding pass. If they don't fit, they have to either have booked a second seat (in which case they don't have to do the test) or otherwise pay for a second seat if available. This is a similar principle to carry on luggage.
2. At the security screening there are two lines, one for people with two seats and one (or many) for people with one seat. The metal detector in the single seat lines is no wider than an aircraft seat. If you can't fit through it, you are sent back to the check in to purchase your second seat. This picks up those who use carry on baggage only.
3. People who have paid for a second seat up front simply check in without the test and go through the designated security screening que without having to potentially be "rejected".
Seems fairly reasonable to me. I am all for a volumetric weight test for person and baggage for airline ticketing, but I think we are a long way from having the technology to do that effectively yet.
Wow, didn't realize my comment about cheap food would set off a debate, but I'm glad -- it's a healthy debate, right? nyuk nyuk.
Yes, you can eat healthy on a budget. But for every comparison of good produce you can get cheap (rice and potatoes most obviously) there's another area where the opposite is true - beverages in particular coming to mind, where you can get a bottle of coke for $.99 or less but a gallon of milk will run you close to $3. Eating out is another area, where in many places the choice is between a $2-3 slice of pizza, a $5 fast food meal, or $8-10 for lunch in a diner (and up from there). Depending on where you are there may be a place that does affordable wraps or something competitive with fast food but that's not everywhere.
It's also not just how much stuff costs, but who knows what it costs and how they make their food-buying decisions. Health food stores are not the province of low-income families, I suspect not so much due to actual costs but to the culture, the sense of class, and the marketing that affects their choices about what they like.
Yes, you can eat healthy on a budget. But for every comparison of good produce you can get cheap (rice and potatoes most obviously) there's another area where the opposite is true - beverages in particular coming to mind, where you can get a bottle of coke for $.99 or less but a gallon of milk will run you close to $3. Eating out is another area, where in many places the choice is between a $2-3 slice of pizza, a $5 fast food meal, or $8-10 for lunch in a diner (and up from there). Depending on where you are there may be a place that does affordable wraps or something competitive with fast food but that's not everywhere.
It's also not just how much stuff costs, but who knows what it costs and how they make their food-buying decisions. Health food stores are not the province of low-income families, I suspect not so much due to actual costs but to the culture, the sense of class, and the marketing that affects their choices about what they like.
The trick is not to eat out. And that applies to sodas too. A average can of soft drink contains something like 7 tablespoons of sugar. Making your own tea, coffee, lime juice, or drinking plain water (all of which are common around the world) is CHEAP (at least definitely cheaper than sodas) and contain way less sugar.
Best of all, if you make them in large batches, it should only take you 15 minutes tops to make a gallon worth of the stuff - which you can then chill and serve/drink any time.
Fwiw the last time i calculated the price of my lime juice (2 tbs sugar and 1 lime per cup of hot water, chill) it came to about a quarter of the price of Coke. And it contained a quarter of the amount of sugar. And it was great tasting to boot. Vitamin C too. I guess the equivalent out there is lemonade. Just don't add so much lemon/sugar.
Those are all good ideas. I always make bulk, multi gallon batches of drinks from fresh fruit using my juicer. Eating out and eating healthy CAN be done though. We have several restaurants in town where I can eat VERY healty, it just costs to do it. Also, I spend a lot of money every week buying fresh fruits and veggies for my juicer. I feel doing both is money well spent and I just DO NOT have time to prep and cook at home. If I do, it's something on the grill, like fish, shell fish or steaks which also gets expensive.
Eating out - i find - is always expensive. I mean, even here (Singapore, where you can pick up a wholesome veg/meat/rice kind of meal outside for $2) it is hard to find eat out cheaper than cooking at home, especially when cooking for a family.
I like my juices too, but I would rather eat the fruit. There's a lot of fibre in fruit pulp which you lose if you juice it. (I think its better if you blend them, but they won't be as smooth).
Not necessarily. Being told at gunpoint (the ultimate endpoint of any "law") that smoking is "bad" and potatoes are "good", is bad. Freedom to choose is good.
If you like lots of potatoes, go for it. If I like to smoke, I should be able to, too. If you want to open an all-vegitarian restruant, or one that serves rare steak, go for it. If I want to open a family dining room or a smoke-and-whiskey bar, I should have those choices, too. And you can either have the choice to patronize them or not, or you can have that choice taken away from you and made by someone else.
Some things are better for you than others. Some behaviors are riskier than others. Some things we don't have a choice about. But the point is that I don't need someone else, hundreds or thousands of miles away, making those decisions for me. First of all, most people, including most politicians, aren't nearly smart enough to entrust with that. Secondly, I haven't met anyone who thinks that kind of government fiat is a good idea that doesn't have an agenda. For example, the local smoking ordinance around here that was passed a year ago (and the state-level debate in Topeka) is a battle between two restrauant associations. One side represents family-oriented chains that wants to ban smoking entirely so that they don't have to accommodate smokers and to crimp the competition, versus a group of local bar and grill owners that wants to keep their businesses open. So...my rights are dependent upon their economic interests, and that's just flat wrong.
And it's wrong to debate other health issues based on economic interests, either. You want cheaper healthcare so you think you should be able to dictate my lifestyle, but don't think I should be able to dictate yours? Sure, you can ban French fries and cigarettes, as long as I can ban driving and skiing (we'll save >50,000 lives a year, and some of them are children!). Or, we can leave each other alone and leave government doing the few things it does well. I'm all for the latter.
I would be in hell if I had to eat some of the diets described here. You folks go for it, but leave me out of it and don't send your government thugs to force it on me. For any reason.
Uh huh. You're one of those smokers who says "it's my right" a lot.
I see no reason in further debate as I have a PhD, but you know it all.
So, if you don't want the government making any decisions how healthy are you?
Wait let me get this right. You're against all laws? You realize that's how a state works, right?
I just oppose nosy fascists who say I don't have that right.
How healthy am I? That's none of anyone's business but mine, which is the whole point. And that includes what I may or may not have done to get to whatever state that happens to be, and what I may or may not do in the future that affects that state. Not yours, not the City Council's, not the State Legislature, and certainly not some pol in DC's.
Let me help, then: I oppose laws that impose someone else's idea of a "healthy" lifestyle. Whether that's drug laws or helmet laws or smoking laws or food restrictions. I'm ok with laws that keep you from doing something to me, or me doing something to you. I'm against the ones that keep me from doing something to me or you from doing something to you. Capiche?
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
IOW, you're just going to make something up?
An answer, then: extremely. Tall and thick but not fat, able to work a 10-hour day, set-up a 6-piece band, play a 4-hour gig, tear it down, then go lookin' for my wife to rock her world. I smoke to keep me from being any healthier, so the rest of you have a chance to keep up!
Your point being...?
Nah. The point of most smoking restrictions is to try to get some politician re-elected. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. Either way, it is some government body deciding that I can't open a smoker's bar, that I can't work in a smoker's bar, and I can't patronize a smoker's bar. ALL of MY choices have been taken away. And the usual rational that is used is that the rest of you aren't smart enough to make that decision, either, so it has to be made for you, one size fits all. We will keep you all snuggly and warm, don't worry about a thing.
I can tell that the end of Malboro dollars was like a stock market collapse to you.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
Latest posts
-
-
Post a funnier picture than the one above - Parallel Universe Edition- Latest: 5StringBlues
-
-
