The latest data from a decades-long health survey finds that—yet again—the vast majority of Americans have a poor diet and many of us are inactive. Specifically, just 10 percent of Americans eat enough vegetables, and only 12 percent eat enough fruit, according to recent responses to the CDC's survey, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system. Recent responses also reveal that 25 percent of Americans don't do any exercise outside of any work activity.
A poor diet and inactivity can both set people up for medical conditions, such as weak immune function, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and certain cancers, the CDC notes.
I think it's pedagogically interesting that this is phrased as "not eating enough" vegetables and fruits. Sure we eat too little actually nutritious, unprocessed food too. Isn't that a very...
I think it's pedagogically interesting that this is phrased as "not eating enough" vegetables and fruits.
Sure we eat too little actually nutritious, unprocessed food too. Isn't that a very secondary concern to the massive over-eating of unhealthy things?
Isn't the real big problem with diet in the US that Americans are eating too much of almost everything? It seems very strange to phrase things in a way that suggests the problem is that we aren't eating more...
Yes, excluding fruits and vegetables If people ate more fruit and vegetables they would eat less of everything else, there's a limit to how much a person can eat a day. This much should be pretty...
Isn't the real big problem with diet in the US that Americans are eating too much of almost everything?
Yes, excluding fruits and vegetables
It seems very strange to phrase things in a way that suggests the problem is that we aren't eating more...
If people ate more fruit and vegetables they would eat less of everything else, there's a limit to how much a person can eat a day. This much should be pretty obvious to everybody.
If people add a bunch of fruits as snacks and veg on top of other meals (which they easily could), things get even worse. The limit of what people can eat is way, way higher than the limit for how...
If people ate more fruit and vegetables they would eat less of everything else, there's a limit to how much a person can eat a day. This much should be pretty obvious to everybody.
If people add a bunch of fruits as snacks and veg on top of other meals (which they easily could), things get even worse.
The limit of what people can eat is way, way higher than the limit for how much food a person needs.
Forcing yourself and health issues aside, most people eat until satiation, and eating fiber rich food like fruit and vegetables help satiating faster. Fat is satiating too. Eating slowly also...
The amount of fruits/vegetables in a diet doesn't limit intake at all.
Forcing yourself and health issues aside, most people eat until satiation, and eating fiber rich food like fruit and vegetables help satiating faster. Fat is satiating too. Eating slowly also helps as the sensation of having eaten enough takes a while to kick in.
It's a good observation. My take is it's meant to be shorthand for "not eating enough [as a fraction of our diet]". When people are referred to as being "anal" there's an implied "anal...
It's a good observation.
My take is it's meant to be shorthand for "not eating enough [as a fraction of our diet]". When people are referred to as being "anal" there's an implied "anal [retentive]" instead of "expulsive", leading to a technically ambiguous (and completely opposite) term not causing any confusion.
The language might also be shaped by some understanding of scientific communication or behavioral nudges. Maybe a call to do something has a better chance of changing behavior or being remembered, and a person that actively eats vegetables will naturally eat less processed starch.
Is there any reason to group fruits with veggies? I get that they're a better alternative to a lot of other sweet things, but is there a significant function they play in the diet outside of that?
It is certainly possible to have a healthy diet without any vegetable. However (and this will vary a lot depending on where you live), vegetables are often a safe, cheap, and accessible way to...
It is certainly possible to have a healthy diet without any vegetable. However (and this will vary a lot depending on where you live), vegetables are often a safe, cheap, and accessible way to improve your diet.
Appreciate the addition! I wasn't trying to say that fruits were bad, either, just that they feel like a different category to me. Vegetables are something that seem essential to a good diet. Dark...
Appreciate the addition!
I wasn't trying to say that fruits were bad, either, just that they feel like a different category to me. Vegetables are something that seem essential to a good diet. Dark leafy greens are something that just about anyone should be eating more of.
Fruit have benefits but I don't think of them as being essential for being healthy, and often they're kinda empty calories.
Vitamin C is something you get from a lot of other sources (broccoli, soy beans, brussell sprouts, potatoes, etc.) and I don't think that's something many people are deficient in, even without regular fruits in their diet. Satiety is something you can also find in veggies or complex carbs like oatmeal.
To me this is a more practical matter. If you live, IDK, in Siberia, nutritious fruit is probably not fresh, cheap, or that easy to come buy. But if you're in Rio de Janeiro, fruits are a no-brainer.
To me this is a more practical matter. If you live, IDK, in Siberia, nutritious fruit is probably not fresh, cheap, or that easy to come buy. But if you're in Rio de Janeiro, fruits are a no-brainer.
I was pretty sure that the usage of "anal" in English comes from Freud. If I'm not mistaken, the anal phase in babies is when they realize that they can exert control over their parents by saving...
I was pretty sure that the usage of "anal" in English comes from Freud. If I'm not mistaken, the anal phase in babies is when they realize that they can exert control over their parents by saving the poop for certain occasions. For example, if the baby doesn't want the parent to leave for work, they can poop just before they leave and gain a few more minutes of attention.
I think the bar for "do any exercise" is pretty low. The question used to determine this was: ...and there's a note about the question that "If respondent does not have a regular job or is...
I think the bar for "do any exercise" is pretty low. The question used to determine this was:
During the past month, other than your regular job, did you participate in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise?
...and there's a note about the question that "If respondent does not have a regular job or is retired, they may count any physical activity or exercise they do."
So they're letting the respondent determine if they did anything physical whatsoever outside of their normal job, or anything at all to count as exercise.
I fully realize that any physical activity is better than no physical activity, but I'd be hard pressed to say taking my dog around the block to relieve himself is exercise.
I think it's pedagogically interesting that this is phrased as "not eating enough" vegetables and fruits.
Sure we eat too little actually nutritious, unprocessed food too. Isn't that a very secondary concern to the massive over-eating of unhealthy things?
Isn't the real big problem with diet in the US that Americans are eating too much of almost everything? It seems very strange to phrase things in a way that suggests the problem is that we aren't eating more...
Yes, excluding fruits and vegetables
If people ate more fruit and vegetables they would eat less of everything else, there's a limit to how much a person can eat a day. This much should be pretty obvious to everybody.
If people add a bunch of fruits as snacks and veg on top of other meals (which they easily could), things get even worse.
The limit of what people can eat is way, way higher than the limit for how much food a person needs.
Forcing yourself and health issues aside, most people eat until satiation, and eating fiber rich food like fruit and vegetables help satiating faster. Fat is satiating too. Eating slowly also helps as the sensation of having eaten enough takes a while to kick in.
It's a good observation.
My take is it's meant to be shorthand for "not eating enough [as a fraction of our diet]". When people are referred to as being "anal" there's an implied "anal [retentive]" instead of "expulsive", leading to a technically ambiguous (and completely opposite) term not causing any confusion.
The language might also be shaped by some understanding of scientific communication or behavioral nudges. Maybe a call to do something has a better chance of changing behavior or being remembered, and a person that actively eats vegetables will naturally eat less processed starch.
Is there any reason to group fruits with veggies? I get that they're a better alternative to a lot of other sweet things, but is there a significant function they play in the diet outside of that?
Per Wikipedia, fruits generally have high vitamin C, a lot of water, and fiber (the last of which helps you feel full and control overeating).
It is certainly possible to have a healthy diet without any vegetable. However (and this will vary a lot depending on where you live), vegetables are often a safe, cheap, and accessible way to improve your diet.
I wasn’t trying to say that veggies were bad or unneeded. I was merely saying why (edit:) fruit
they werewas beneficial.Appreciate the addition!
I wasn't trying to say that fruits were bad, either, just that they feel like a different category to me. Vegetables are something that seem essential to a good diet. Dark leafy greens are something that just about anyone should be eating more of.
Fruit have benefits but I don't think of them as being essential for being healthy, and often they're kinda empty calories.
Vitamin C is something you get from a lot of other sources (broccoli, soy beans, brussell sprouts, potatoes, etc.) and I don't think that's something many people are deficient in, even without regular fruits in their diet. Satiety is something you can also find in veggies or complex carbs like oatmeal.
To me this is a more practical matter. If you live, IDK, in Siberia, nutritious fruit is probably not fresh, cheap, or that easy to come buy. But if you're in Rio de Janeiro, fruits are a no-brainer.
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that. Just adding to the conversation.
I was pretty sure that the usage of "anal" in English comes from Freud. If I'm not mistaken, the anal phase in babies is when they realize that they can exert control over their parents by saving the poop for certain occasions. For example, if the baby doesn't want the parent to leave for work, they can poop just before they leave and gain a few more minutes of attention.
It does come from Freud, with babies being either anal retentive or anal expulsive.
I'm surprised it's only 25%. Maybe they consider very light activities exercise.
I think the bar for "do any exercise" is pretty low. The question used to determine this was:
...and there's a note about the question that "If respondent does not have a regular job or is retired, they may count any physical activity or exercise they do."
So they're letting the respondent determine if they did anything physical whatsoever outside of their normal job, or anything at all to count as exercise.
I fully realize that any physical activity is better than no physical activity, but I'd be hard pressed to say taking my dog around the block to relieve himself is exercise.
Even a brisk walk is considered exercise, IIRC.