zlacker

[return to "Eat Real Food"]
1. schmuc+54[view] [source] 2026-01-07 17:37:52
>>atestu+(OP)
Speaking from personal experience, this is consistent with multiple doctors over the years recommending high-protein, low carb diets. (Clarification: low does not mean no carb.)

I don't understand people freaking out over this - outside of a purely political reflex - hell hath no fury like taking away nerds' Mountain Dew and Flamin' Hot Cheetos.

Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible.

◧◩
2. bruceb+L4[view] [source] 2026-01-07 17:40:33
>>schmuc+54
Pure partisan spite. The gov't not spending money on candy and sugary drinks is good. Just like when Michelle Obama pushed for better school lunches.
◧◩◪
3. ecshaf+kf[view] [source] 2026-01-07 18:15:54
>>bruceb+L4
One of the best litmus tests for Democrat or Republican I have found is "Should people on food stamps be able to buy mountain dew / candy / etc with them?", very low false positive rate in either direction.

But regardless I have it on very good authority that with the BBB some within the Republican party wanted to limit EBT to only be able to purchase healthy food. No soda, no candy, no chips, etc. A couple calls from Coke, Pepsi, etc lobbyists shot that down.

◧◩◪◨
4. hairof+4b1[view] [source] 2026-01-07 22:07:22
>>ecshaf+kf
In my experience the reason Republicans are so interested in what people can buy with food stamps is that they want very much to punish people who are on food stamps. If they truly cared about the health of needy Americans there are a lot of other things they could do, or even a lot of things they could stop doing like making it more difficult to access health care, quackifying vaccine recommendations, holding press conferences in which they say nobody should take Tylenol under any circumstances, making dubious assertions about AIDS; the list goes on and on.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. modusp+uB1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 00:35:07
>>hairof+4b1
What if we just don't want to subsidize giving people lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders? Why does that necessarily imply we have to agree with you on other issues? Do we need to make it tribal and ascribe ulterior motives?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. rootus+kR4[view] [source] 2026-01-08 23:20:25
>>modusp+uB1
> giving people lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders

Is that a given? People can drink soda without getting fat. And plenty of people get quite large without ever drinking soda. This seems more personal, like intentionally causing suffering as a moral imperative.

[go to top]