Alright, this is pretty much all entirely off-topic bickering where nobody's going to budge anyway. Let's do something more interesting today than re-hash the same points 50 more times.
Alright, this is pretty much all entirely off-topic bickering where nobody's going to budge anyway. Let's do something more interesting today than re-hash the same points 50 more times.
A bigger problem we have, as a culture, is starting to make obesity normalized, and equating obese to being healthy. It's a problem that is costing our healthcare system in the US billions.
It's that we've got a fashion company sending out diet bars to people. It's just continuing to further the narrative that beauty == skinny.
A bigger problem we have, as a culture, is starting to make obesity normalized, and equating obese to being healthy.
It's a problem that is costing our healthcare system in the US billions.
or, alternatively, if you'd prefer more grounded-in-reality ideas of how this works for most people that don't rely on the frankly dumb assumption that being fat is purely a result of your "bad...
Exemplary
fat is something that reflects your bad choices in life
or, alternatively, if you'd prefer more grounded-in-reality ideas of how this works for most people that don't rely on the frankly dumb assumption that being fat is purely a result of your "bad choices", it reflects any number of things ranging from genetic makeup that predisposes you to being more likely to obesity and a harder time burning off fat (which you are born with), to a lack of food options in your life because you live in food deserts or places where healthy food comes at a premium, to having no food literacy because people in america don't get taught beyond the literal basics--if they're taught at all--how to have balanced diets and what foods are and are not healthy, and so on.
the idea that obesity and fatness in general is a result of personal "bad choices" is really only something that can be said if you have a lack a perspective or understanding of the issues and factors which play into its propagation. there's a reason literally nobody worth their time who champions causes of health and combats obesity resorts to that trope, and that's because it's a reductive fantasy that conveniently lets governments and food lobbyists and food companies and corporations which set policy off the hook while also shifting the blame to people who are predominantly worse off in life and claiming they, not the system, need to change course even though most people who are fat or obese aren't that because they made bad choices, but because the deck is kinda stacked against you if you want to eat healthy in america and gym memberships and bike rides can only do so much to combat a system of food which is almost fundamentally built on unhealthy premises.
also, what exactly is incorrect about the comparison @Bishop made there? i'm not really seeing how skin tone doesn't map with weight just because you're born with one and the other can only be influenced by factors you were born with, considering both play significant roles in fashion and modeling and there is a certain model of beauty promoted in both that skews thinner and white.
That is all being fat derives from: Bad choices. Nobody is forcing you to overeat. Nobody is forcing you to not exercise. Our genetics haven't changed much in the past 50 years, but yet, obesity...
Exemplary
that being fat is purely a result of your "bad choices",
That is all being fat derives from: Bad choices. Nobody is forcing you to overeat. Nobody is forcing you to not exercise.
Our genetics haven't changed much in the past 50 years, but yet, obesity has become more prevalent.
...and for people who have no choices, which is a lot of people? or people who do, but their choice is convenience stores and not supermarkets? what about folks who don't have money to eat...
That is all being fat derives from: Bad choices. Nobody is forcing you to overeat. Nobody is forcing you to not exercise.
...and for people who have no choices, which is a lot of people? or people who do, but their choice is convenience stores and not supermarkets? what about folks who don't have money to eat healthy? there are literally countless circumstances which fail this absolutely asinine idea that "bad choices" make fat and obese people, and i reiterate that there is a reason that nobody worth their salt leans into this trope, and it's because that idea of "bad choices" is a dumb reductive trope from people who have no clue what they're talking about and want an easy answer to a not-easy problem. michelle obama did not, when she promoted reforms which brough more healthy alternatives for children into the school lunch system, say it was the problem of parents that their children were eating shitty school meals, she said it was a problem of the system, because it is a problem of the system mostly. do you think that we would have these outcomes if food literacy was normal in american schooling, or if what we're supposed to put on our plate wasn't decided by lobbyists from food industries, or if the government regulated things which contribute to such outcomes like the sugars which are in everything now?
You always have a choice to eat, or not. I myself lost 50 pounds, still eating takeaways, fast food, etc. Just tracked it in MyFitnessPal, and exercised more. I chose to eat less.
and for people who have no choices
You always have a choice to eat, or not.
I myself lost 50 pounds, still eating takeaways, fast food, etc. Just tracked it in MyFitnessPal, and exercised more.
that's cool and good for you, but your anecdotes are not the single, binding truth just because you insist they are and they don't really negate the fact that it's a complicated issue that you're...
You always have a choice to eat, or not. I myself lost 50 pounds, still eating takeaways, fast food, etc. Just tracked it in MyFitnessPal, and exercised more.
that's cool and good for you, but your anecdotes are not the single, binding truth just because you insist they are and they don't really negate the fact that it's a complicated issue that you're trying to stupidly boil down to some sort of binary choice of eating or not eating as if not being fat and obese--and more broadly being healthy--is purely a matter of caloric intake. even that isn't quite that simple, and frankly if it's a broader matter of eating healthy, a diet of chips and twinkies which might make you lose weight is still no more healthy a diet than blowing through a 2,000 calorie pizza every other day and explosively gaining weight accordingly, because losing weight is not the be-all-end-all of health.
http://www.healthcarebusinesstech.com/nutritionist-loses-27-pounds-on-twinkie-and-oreo-diet-no-really/ So, yes, you will be healthier eating a calorically balanced diet of Twinkies and Oreos, than...
healthier is not inherently healthy, though, which you seem to be completely ignoring. i can probably be healthier by hunger striking than by being obese, but that doesn't mean that i should...
So, yes, you will be healthier eating a calorically balanced diet of Twinkies and Oreos, than you would be by being obese.
healthier is not inherently healthy, though, which you seem to be completely ignoring. i can probably be healthier by hunger striking than by being obese, but that doesn't mean that i should always forego eating because that's ridiculous. similarly, while you can potentially be healthier by eating twinkies and oreos than you would be if you're obese, that does not mean you are healthy and eating exclusively those things is a pretty good way to be deficient in nutrition, which is mildly important to... uh, everything, really!
As for my weight loss, it's hardly anecdotal... Tons of cases to demonstrate it.
it is literally an anecdote, and super interestingly, if we look at your first link, we find this:
I chose a well-rounded, nutritious diet plan consisting of a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and healthy fats (and also very low in carbohydrates). It was a popular commercial diet, which I modified to suit my preferences (most of the diets out there are fairly similar). I never bought any of their prepared foods, and used their menu only as a guide, substituting what I liked or had in the pantry where necessary.
I got a small pocket notebook, and started keeping track of everything that I ate. Each page represented a day’s intake, and I counted calories, as best I could. Once a week, I weighed myself, and jotted that down as well.
Exercise in those early days consisted of only a few minutes of sit-ups, pushups, and other in-place calisthenics at nighttime, after the kids had gone to sleep (and before they woke up again overnight).
...
It took over two years, but I lost 50 pounds. In the three years since, I’ve maintained that weight loss within five pounds.
which, lol. i hope you understand how unrealistic this is for a large, large number of people, not least many of the people who suffer the most from the obesity problem that exists in america. many of these people are predominantly poor, predominantly lacking in the time necessary to organize and adhere to a stringent diet, and predominantly lacking in any sort of options of food in the first place, much less one open to a "well-rounded, nutritious diet plan consisting of a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and healthy fats (and also very low in carbohydrates)". moreover, how do you expect people to do this when they're again not literate in the food they're eating and when many of the worst of people off have to basically plan their day around a trip to the supermarket just so they're not eating convenience store food because it's so far out of their way or such a big time sink for them? you're coming at this from the perspective of someone who has access to nearly everything you'd ever want with little to no hassle, and that's something that a lot of the worst off people in america healthwise could only dream of.
(your second link is largely useless as a matter of practice because it's just a rundown of stats with little to no context and, judging by the circumstances and the stats themselves, probably reflects a whiter, more middle-class sampling of america than we'd ever really be discussing here.)
can i ask why you think that's my only objection and why you're specifically singling that bit out as my objection when i literally outlined an entire thing about how a lot of people have...
It's unrealistic to log your food, log your weight, and adjust food intake accordingly? Why is that not realistic?
can i ask why you think that's my only objection and why you're specifically singling that bit out as my objection when i literally outlined an entire thing about how a lot of people have absolutely no access to the sorts of things this person undertook to lose 50 pounds of weight? because it sure seems a lot to me like you're just sticking your head in the sand at this point rather than listening to someone who actually is one of those people and who lives that experience every day because my family has to stretch 400 dollars of EBT between the three of us--and we're fortunate still even with such a dearth of money to feed ourselves, because we have close access to supermarkets and healthy eating stores that many people of our socioeconomic status could only dream of.
I mean this as respectfully and non-confrontationally as I possibly can: Reread what you just said, please. Because what it sounds like you're saying is a much more polite version of "Have you...
You always have a choice to eat or not
I mean this as respectfully and non-confrontationally as I possibly can: Reread what you just said, please. Because what it sounds like you're saying is a much more polite version of "Have you tried not eating, fatty".
You can make anything sound malicious if you want to. There is nothing wrong with observing the fact that eating at a caloric deficit will cause one to lose weight. It's simply a basic...
You can make anything sound malicious if you want to. There is nothing wrong with observing the fact that eating at a caloric deficit will cause one to lose weight. It's simply a basic mathematical fact.
I'm sorry but I'm failing to understand how what I've said is malicious. Who are we helping with this attitude? Who is helped by viewing the facts about caloric intake as malicious (something...
I'm sorry but I'm failing to understand how what I've said is malicious. Who are we helping with this attitude? Who is helped by viewing the facts about caloric intake as malicious (something you're choosing to do)? You certainly aren't helping obese people become more healthy.
Speaking as an obese person who has yo-yo'd with his weight multiple times, I can assure you that sounds malicious to me. You didn't say anything that sounded malicious, I was referring to the OP.
Speaking as an obese person who has yo-yo'd with his weight multiple times, I can assure you that
You always have a choice to eat, or not.
sounds malicious to me. You didn't say anything that sounded malicious, I was referring to the OP.
How about gut flora? We now live in an obesogenic environment. This makes it very much harder for people to make sensible choices -- those choices just aren't available for many people.
Our genetics haven't changed much in the past 50 years,
How about gut flora?
but yet, obesity has become more prevalent.
We now live in an obesogenic environment. This makes it very much harder for people to make sensible choices -- those choices just aren't available for many people.
Gut flora adapts to whatever you eat. The reason why you often get the runs when you travel internationally. Your gut flora isn't adapted to the new diet. It's not hard to eat less, and move more.
How about gut flora?
Gut flora adapts to whatever you eat. The reason why you often get the runs when you travel internationally. Your gut flora isn't adapted to the new diet.
We now live in an obesogenic environment. This makes it very much harder for people to make sensible choices -- those choices just aren't available for many people.
yes, those are too. do you think we all grow up with a desire to drink alcohol, take meth, or smoke tobacco, and do you think those things would be nearly as prevalent if we addressed the...
what about smoking/ doing meth/ being an alcoholic - those are all problems that not a small fraction of the population has, those are also influence from outside.
yes, those are too. do you think we all grow up with a desire to drink alcohol, take meth, or smoke tobacco, and do you think those things would be nearly as prevalent if we addressed the underlying problems and influences that push people to such products? smoking for example has been dropping in the developed world for literally decades because governments have cracked down on advertisement of tobacco products and regulated them accordingly, almost as if the problem isn't the people who do it, but the people and corporations who peddle it. the same is true of meth and alcohol: you don't solve those problems by bitching about how the people who do those things are to blame for their own circumstances, because broadly, they're not. most people aren't meth addicts or alcoholics because they want to be, and the same is true of people who are fat or obese. you will only ever truly prevent people from becoming those things by addressing the roots of the issues which drive them to be that way--and shockingly, it turns out when we've done that for alcoholics and meth addicts, they tend to be a whole lot better off than when we say "you are responsible for your own state, and you should pull yourself back up", and the same is true of fatness and obesity.
so smoking should be as okay as being obese, it is not a problem of bad choices, but lack of education and a problem of everyone else.
nope, and i didn't say it should be acceptable, the literal opposite actually. obesity is a problem, but the solution to that problem again is not and will never be "you are responsible for this alone because of your bad choices", it's to actually address the root causes of the problem and ensure that those supposed "bad choices" aren't choices people make in the first place--or at least, that if they do make those choices they know they're making them since right now they often don't. a lack of education is also a serious problem which contributes to obesity (and smoking and drug addiction and plenty of other societal ills), yes.
fat people cost more taxes due to adaption to their needs, methheads cost more because of their crime and hospitalization?
...i don't see why this matters? and i don't see why the "figure your own shit out" approach to obesity instead of tackling the things which create it would suddenly solve that or make it in any way better?
I can't say I saw anything in @alyaza's comment that suggested anything like "being fat is anything but a problem caused by “bad choices”. everyone is to blame but the fat one". Can you point me...
I can't say I saw anything in @alyaza's comment that suggested anything like "being fat is anything but a problem caused by “bad choices”. everyone is to blame but the fat one". Can you point me to it? Thanks.
I haven't seen something that reductionist in a long, long time. I take it you're unaware of people who had weight issues (too much or too little) due to glandular problems? What about those who,...
fat is something that reflects your bad choices in life
I haven't seen something that reductionist in a long, long time. I take it you're unaware of people who had weight issues (too much or too little) due to glandular problems? What about those who, through no fault of their own, live a very difficult life and use food as a coping mechanism? And what of those that were never actually taught how to properly feed themselves nutritionally and so eat poor quality food, leading to weight gain they otherwise wouldn't have? Or do you explain that all away under the banner of "personal responsibility"?
"Glandular" problems account for ~3% of those who are obese. And of that, glandular issues only account for 150 cal per day difference in metabolism.
I haven't seen something that reductionist in a long, long time. I take it you're unaware of people who had weight issues (too much or too little) due to glandular problems?
"Glandular" problems account for ~3% of those who are obese. And of that, glandular issues only account for 150 cal per day difference in metabolism.
Looks like it worked in the comment thread below :/ God people just eat controversy up nowadays. Wasn't nearly this bad 10-20 years ago. The internet has changed the face of...
Looks like it worked in the comment thread below :/
God people just eat controversy up nowadays. Wasn't nearly this bad 10-20 years ago. The internet has changed the face of trolling/sarcasm/pranks/lying in the worst way
It’s bad PR but also insensitive. The real question is why did no one at Forever 21 say, “Hey, maybe this is a bad idea?” Also, would it have been rectified if there was no bad publicity for them?
It’s bad PR but also insensitive. The real question is why did no one at Forever 21 say, “Hey, maybe this is a bad idea?”
Also, would it have been rectified if there was no bad publicity for them?
Wonder what kind of bar it was. They're basically slightly more nutritious candy bars. I'm assuming if they threw in a Snickers, or something, it'd still be considered offensive. Moral of the...
Wonder what kind of bar it was. They're basically slightly more nutritious candy bars. I'm assuming if they threw in a Snickers, or something, it'd still be considered offensive. Moral of the story: don't put food in a clothing order.
Alright, this is pretty much all entirely off-topic bickering where nobody's going to budge anyway. Let's do something more interesting today than re-hash the same points 50 more times.
A bigger problem we have, as a culture, is starting to make obesity normalized, and equating obese to being healthy.
It's a problem that is costing our healthcare system in the US billions.
or, alternatively, if you'd prefer more grounded-in-reality ideas of how this works for most people that don't rely on the frankly dumb assumption that being fat is purely a result of your "bad choices", it reflects any number of things ranging from genetic makeup that predisposes you to being more likely to obesity and a harder time burning off fat (which you are born with), to a lack of food options in your life because you live in food deserts or places where healthy food comes at a premium, to having no food literacy because people in america don't get taught beyond the literal basics--if they're taught at all--how to have balanced diets and what foods are and are not healthy, and so on.
the idea that obesity and fatness in general is a result of personal "bad choices" is really only something that can be said if you have a lack a perspective or understanding of the issues and factors which play into its propagation. there's a reason literally nobody worth their time who champions causes of health and combats obesity resorts to that trope, and that's because it's a reductive fantasy that conveniently lets governments and food lobbyists and food companies and corporations which set policy off the hook while also shifting the blame to people who are predominantly worse off in life and claiming they, not the system, need to change course even though most people who are fat or obese aren't that because they made bad choices, but because the deck is kinda stacked against you if you want to eat healthy in america and gym memberships and bike rides can only do so much to combat a system of food which is almost fundamentally built on unhealthy premises.
also, what exactly is incorrect about the comparison @Bishop made there? i'm not really seeing how skin tone doesn't map with weight just because you're born with one and the other can only be influenced by factors you were born with, considering both play significant roles in fashion and modeling and there is a certain model of beauty promoted in both that skews thinner and white.
That is all being fat derives from: Bad choices. Nobody is forcing you to overeat. Nobody is forcing you to not exercise.
Our genetics haven't changed much in the past 50 years, but yet, obesity has become more prevalent.
...and for people who have no choices, which is a lot of people? or people who do, but their choice is convenience stores and not supermarkets? what about folks who don't have money to eat healthy? there are literally countless circumstances which fail this absolutely asinine idea that "bad choices" make fat and obese people, and i reiterate that there is a reason that nobody worth their salt leans into this trope, and it's because that idea of "bad choices" is a dumb reductive trope from people who have no clue what they're talking about and want an easy answer to a not-easy problem. michelle obama did not, when she promoted reforms which brough more healthy alternatives for children into the school lunch system, say it was the problem of parents that their children were eating shitty school meals, she said it was a problem of the system, because it is a problem of the system mostly. do you think that we would have these outcomes if food literacy was normal in american schooling, or if what we're supposed to put on our plate wasn't decided by lobbyists from food industries, or if the government regulated things which contribute to such outcomes like the sugars which are in everything now?
You always have a choice to eat, or not.
I myself lost 50 pounds, still eating takeaways, fast food, etc. Just tracked it in MyFitnessPal, and exercised more.
I chose to eat less.
that's cool and good for you, but your anecdotes are not the single, binding truth just because you insist they are and they don't really negate the fact that it's a complicated issue that you're trying to stupidly boil down to some sort of binary choice of eating or not eating as if not being fat and obese--and more broadly being healthy--is purely a matter of caloric intake. even that isn't quite that simple, and frankly if it's a broader matter of eating healthy, a diet of chips and twinkies which might make you lose weight is still no more healthy a diet than blowing through a 2,000 calorie pizza every other day and explosively gaining weight accordingly, because losing weight is not the be-all-end-all of health.
http://www.healthcarebusinesstech.com/nutritionist-loses-27-pounds-on-twinkie-and-oreo-diet-no-really/
So, yes, you will be healthier eating a calorically balanced diet of Twinkies and Oreos, than you would be by being obese.
As for my weight loss, it's hardly anecdotal... Tons of cases to demonstrate it.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/weight-loss-that-works-a-true-story-2017030111218
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
healthier is not inherently healthy, though, which you seem to be completely ignoring. i can probably be healthier by hunger striking than by being obese, but that doesn't mean that i should always forego eating because that's ridiculous. similarly, while you can potentially be healthier by eating twinkies and oreos than you would be if you're obese, that does not mean you are healthy and eating exclusively those things is a pretty good way to be deficient in nutrition, which is mildly important to... uh, everything, really!
it is literally an anecdote, and super interestingly, if we look at your first link, we find this:
which, lol. i hope you understand how unrealistic this is for a large, large number of people, not least many of the people who suffer the most from the obesity problem that exists in america. many of these people are predominantly poor, predominantly lacking in the time necessary to organize and adhere to a stringent diet, and predominantly lacking in any sort of options of food in the first place, much less one open to a "well-rounded, nutritious diet plan consisting of a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and healthy fats (and also very low in carbohydrates)". moreover, how do you expect people to do this when they're again not literate in the food they're eating and when many of the worst of people off have to basically plan their day around a trip to the supermarket just so they're not eating convenience store food because it's so far out of their way or such a big time sink for them? you're coming at this from the perspective of someone who has access to nearly everything you'd ever want with little to no hassle, and that's something that a lot of the worst off people in america healthwise could only dream of.
(your second link is largely useless as a matter of practice because it's just a rundown of stats with little to no context and, judging by the circumstances and the stats themselves, probably reflects a whiter, more middle-class sampling of america than we'd ever really be discussing here.)
It's unrealistic to log your food, log your weight, and adjust food intake accordingly?
Why is that not realistic?
can i ask why you think that's my only objection and why you're specifically singling that bit out as my objection when i literally outlined an entire thing about how a lot of people have absolutely no access to the sorts of things this person undertook to lose 50 pounds of weight? because it sure seems a lot to me like you're just sticking your head in the sand at this point rather than listening to someone who actually is one of those people and who lives that experience every day because my family has to stretch 400 dollars of EBT between the three of us--and we're fortunate still even with such a dearth of money to feed ourselves, because we have close access to supermarkets and healthy eating stores that many people of our socioeconomic status could only dream of.
I mean this as respectfully and non-confrontationally as I possibly can: Reread what you just said, please. Because what it sounds like you're saying is a much more polite version of "Have you tried not eating, fatty".
You can make anything sound malicious if you want to. There is nothing wrong with observing the fact that eating at a caloric deficit will cause one to lose weight. It's simply a basic mathematical fact.
You are correct. And sometimes things just sound malicious all on their own.
I'm sorry but I'm failing to understand how what I've said is malicious. Who are we helping with this attitude? Who is helped by viewing the facts about caloric intake as malicious (something you're choosing to do)? You certainly aren't helping obese people become more healthy.
Speaking as an obese person who has yo-yo'd with his weight multiple times, I can assure you that
sounds malicious to me. You didn't say anything that sounded malicious, I was referring to the OP.
I know exactly what I wrote. And yes, you would be correct, it was a polite way of saying,"Eat less."
How about gut flora?
We now live in an obesogenic environment. This makes it very much harder for people to make sensible choices -- those choices just aren't available for many people.
Gut flora adapts to whatever you eat. The reason why you often get the runs when you travel internationally. Your gut flora isn't adapted to the new diet.
It's not hard to eat less, and move more.
yes, those are too. do you think we all grow up with a desire to drink alcohol, take meth, or smoke tobacco, and do you think those things would be nearly as prevalent if we addressed the underlying problems and influences that push people to such products? smoking for example has been dropping in the developed world for literally decades because governments have cracked down on advertisement of tobacco products and regulated them accordingly, almost as if the problem isn't the people who do it, but the people and corporations who peddle it. the same is true of meth and alcohol: you don't solve those problems by bitching about how the people who do those things are to blame for their own circumstances, because broadly, they're not. most people aren't meth addicts or alcoholics because they want to be, and the same is true of people who are fat or obese. you will only ever truly prevent people from becoming those things by addressing the roots of the issues which drive them to be that way--and shockingly, it turns out when we've done that for alcoholics and meth addicts, they tend to be a whole lot better off than when we say "you are responsible for your own state, and you should pull yourself back up", and the same is true of fatness and obesity.
nope, and i didn't say it should be acceptable, the literal opposite actually. obesity is a problem, but the solution to that problem again is not and will never be "you are responsible for this alone because of your bad choices", it's to actually address the root causes of the problem and ensure that those supposed "bad choices" aren't choices people make in the first place--or at least, that if they do make those choices they know they're making them since right now they often don't. a lack of education is also a serious problem which contributes to obesity (and smoking and drug addiction and plenty of other societal ills), yes.
...i don't see why this matters? and i don't see why the "figure your own shit out" approach to obesity instead of tackling the things which create it would suddenly solve that or make it in any way better?
I can't say I saw anything in @alyaza's comment that suggested anything like "being fat is anything but a problem caused by “bad choices”. everyone is to blame but the fat one". Can you point me to it? Thanks.
I haven't seen something that reductionist in a long, long time. I take it you're unaware of people who had weight issues (too much or too little) due to glandular problems? What about those who, through no fault of their own, live a very difficult life and use food as a coping mechanism? And what of those that were never actually taught how to properly feed themselves nutritionally and so eat poor quality food, leading to weight gain they otherwise wouldn't have? Or do you explain that all away under the banner of "personal responsibility"?
"Glandular" problems account for ~3% of those who are obese. And of that, glandular issues only account for 150 cal per day difference in metabolism.
Any retort for the other two examples?
How do you know they aren't sending these to people with eating disorders?
No big deal, bad PR move by them and they rectified it immediately. But none of that fits in the title for these websites, does it?
Gotta cause outrage.
Looks like it worked in the comment thread below :/
God people just eat controversy up nowadays. Wasn't nearly this bad 10-20 years ago. The internet has changed the face of trolling/sarcasm/pranks/lying in the worst way
Is this not also a straw man of the argument about eating less?
It’s bad PR but also insensitive. The real question is why did no one at Forever 21 say, “Hey, maybe this is a bad idea?”
Also, would it have been rectified if there was no bad publicity for them?
Wonder what kind of bar it was. They're basically slightly more nutritious candy bars. I'm assuming if they threw in a Snickers, or something, it'd still be considered offensive. Moral of the story: don't put food in a clothing order.