Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
14 Nov

Weekend Link Love – Edition 117

weekend link loveSure, evolution is important to health. But how about business and relationships? Evolvify aims to become a hub for the evolutionary-minded.

Would you rather go skiing or parachuting? Why not do both at the same time! (Warning: video contains both insanity and bliss.)

Happy Meals are sad. And in San Francisco they are very sad now that Happy Meal toys are banned.

Some of you may remember Tom Greenwald‘s Primal Blueprint Fitness Video from back in the day (love it for the shot at 2:09 where Tom falls backwards out of a tree and rolls out into a sprint). Tom now has a YouTube channel loaded with exemplary natural fitness videos. If you need some motivation to exercise outdoors, check out his most recent upload.

Are you in the mood for food? The Los Angeles Times challenges conventional wisdom by explaining if and how your mood is actually affected by certain foods. Then read my entirely-legitimate-and-not-even-slightly-satirical interpretation of “The Mood Diet”.

And finally, this is what happens, Larry.

Recipe Corner

Time Capsule

One year ago (November 7 – 13)

Comment of the Week

VERY upset at the choice of name for the ‘Power Glove.’ The REAL Power Glove is perfection incarnate and should NEVER be belittled by having its name placed on a mere SHOE.

- Mike H. from Jumping on the Barefoot Bandwagon

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. Evolvify = another palegomaniac

    Rich wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • Rich, if that was really the case, I guess he’d have no choice but to agree with you. ;)

      Thank you for the link, Mark. The site’s still only about six weeks old… Lots more work to do! (And… like Rich, my own mother prefers your site to mine.)

      Slainte,
      Andrew

      Andrew wrote on November 14th, 2010
      • Andrew,

        I had a sifty around your site this morning whilst at the airport. For something that is only 6 weeks old, there is some very cool content there! Well done!

        Jamie wrote on November 14th, 2010
  2. Thank you for the speed skiing video, its flipping incredible!!

    Archie wrote on November 14th, 2010
  3. I really love the Happy Meal news. That’s probably the biggest draw for kids when they ask for a Happy Meal, the toy! Baby steps :)

    Tara wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • So you support more intervention from big gov…wasn’t that the problem in the first place?

      The law is just stupid politicking. Again.

      Grok wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • “If the babies don’t get what they want, then they won’t stop crying,” Sanchez said.

      Parenting seems like a good answer.

      We don’t have a good track record on govt promoting what’s healthy or not. If you read the piece, they are still allowed to serve the toys if the meals meet certain nutritional guidelines. Govt nutritional guidelines are good for a laugh (or cry).

      Roland wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • Also, is the fun box part of the “toy” rule? What about the free crowns at BK? In-N-Out has free stickers and no kid meals at all, but a burger, fries and a shake are still too many calories.

      Roland wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • That’s why my mother always bought just the toy for me. No Happy Meal, but I was happy about the crappy plastic toy.

      sixfoxromeo wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • Really? The government (and big agra’s manipulation of it) is the reason we’ve had the lipid hypothesis stuffed down our ever-fattening throats for the last 6 decades and you’re championing their continued intervention?

      Ingenol wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • Oh my gosh. Excuse me for having an opinion.

      Tara wrote on November 14th, 2010
      • What did you expect? For everyone to join you in praise of the power we give to our almighty infallible lawmakers? Excuse US for having an opinion.

        In my state (Washington) our Governor passed an ‘emergency’ ban on alcoholic energy drinks like four loko and joose because some kids got fucked up on them and were hospitalized. This ban completely circumvents the democratic process and puts store owners and manufacturers out of millions of dollars of products.

        Why? Because some college kids got a hold of it and got wasted? This happens all the time, with malt liquor, beer, spirits, pretty much every night in america. You can buy a 40 oz and a can of regular energy drink for the same effect. But that’s not illegal? You can buy a bottle of wild turkey and as many 5hr energies as you want, that’s not illegal. The ban was basically targeted at brands like four loko and joose because they think having colorful packaging on an alcoholic drink is going to encourage kids to drink. So what? I wanted to drink in high school, and I got someone to buy cans of PBR for me, and those don’t have colorful labels.

        The mere existence of things like drugs and alcohol and delicious hamburgers is cause enough for anyone to want them. It makes me sick to my stomach that we live in a world where people are so morally apathetic they would outsource their own personal life decisions and those of others to some dubiously wise nanny state.

        If I had to choose between a world where everyone was forced to be paleo, and a world where everyone had the freedom to do what they want provided it didn’t harm anyone else, I would choose the latter in a new york minute.

        James P. wrote on November 14th, 2010
      • I hope I didn’t offend. I was trying to show the other side things. Sorry if I came across too strongly.

        Roland wrote on November 14th, 2010
      • I think this really is a matter of ethics.

        McDonalds knowingly manufactures and sells extremely unhealthy food to the detriment of people all over the globe. They purposely target children at a young age to get them hooked, by removing the toy the government is attempting to decrease the allure of unhealthy food. McDonalds is really at fault, and yes, the government should not have to step in to stop this, but at least SOMEONE is enacting a change.

        This isn’t to say that people should not take some personal responsibility for what they put into their bodies, but ultimately it is unethical to create food which detriments human nature by leading to major health issues.

        Tara wrote on November 14th, 2010
        • How exactly is it unethical to create unhealthy food? I personally believe violence is one of the most powerful standards of ethics because it’s one of the worst things you can do. McDonald’s doesn’t force you to eat anything! McDonalds simply provides goods and services that the public WANTS! how is that unethical?

          What does the government do? The government tells us what we should and should not do, and what happens if we don’t agree? What happens if we disobey? They send letters, notices, bills, fees, and if we continue to disobey they come take us to jail at gunpoint. If we still disobey they will shoot or more likely taser us. Violence or more often the threat of violence is what the government does. Do you not consider that unethical? If the police subdue a murderer or rapist I’m not complaining, but someone who makes hamburgers or doesn’t pay a parking ticket?

          You said you’re happy that “SOMEONE is enacting a change” but you say this as if NOBODY has yet. Can you be so pessimistic? Parents all over are enacting change by NOT taking their kids to McDonald’s. Or at least doing it less often. Or buying them a salad. Is that really not good enough for you? Would you rather have the government come in and arbitrarily change the rules a bit thinking it’s going to fix the problem overnight?

          But what exactly is the problem? Child obesity? How often do you really see obese kids? Most of the time I’ve ever been to McDonald’s I have to strain to find a fat kid, and I very rarely spot one. Most of the time I see healthy kids running around playing. McDonald’s provides increasingly hearty sources of meat and vegetables and a place for children to play, which keeps them quite fit. How is that unethical?

          Of course McDonald’s wants to target children and keep them hooked, that’s what every sane person’s business model should be based on if they want to maximize profit. Should we chastise McDonald’s for having some sense and brains?

          No, we shouldn’t. We are mad that kids are getting unhealthy but whose fault is it really? Parents are there to decide if their kid gets soda or water. They are there to decide if their kid gets a salad or chicken nuggets. They are there to decide of the kid should be eating sugary desserts, or bread, or things fried with hydrogenated oils, things that us paleo people want to nitpick.

          Parents are there to decide if they should even go to McD’s in the first place. They should decide if they want to raise their kid around TV and video games versus outdoor activities. For many parents, this is a decision that is truly not hard at all, and at this juncture, whose fault is it their kids are fat? The parents.

          What about poor or broken families though? Not everyone can afford to eat organic. Not everyone has the time to go buy groceries and cook a healthy meal (well, I would argue they probably do if they only had some damn initiative). For many if not most families who buy fast food, they have to make that decision because it’s affordable and easy. But who should we really blame? McD’s for providing that much needed service to those families? What about the government? Why are they poor in the first place? Could it be because of the punitive taxes that take 40% of money out of the wallets of employers and employees? The tax money that’s spent on expensive wars and social engineering programs? Could it be because of the minimum wage laws and unionization that cripple economic development and competition? Could it be because parents are forced to pay for public schools when they don’t want them? And are forced to send their kids to public schools because they can’t afford anything else? And since schools are designed in such a way to bore the living shit out of kids and send them home 3 hours before their parents get home from work? What if you raised your kid on healthy, hearty food and suddenly (s)he gets french fries from the school cafeteria and now keeps pestering you to bring him or her to McD’s? DAMN THAT MAC DONALD!

          The government is nothing but a cruel, bullying, unwavering stepfather. He wants you to think you need him, because he needs you. He needs your money, and your compliance. When you surrender liberties, power, money, and control to the government more and more, you are perpetuating your role as a helpless child.

          James P. wrote on November 14th, 2010
        • Listen, I’m not saying the government is flawless…

          And I think, that compared to many governments around the world, that we have it pretty good here in the U.S.

          Anyway, you have many good points. Nice having this discussion with you! :)

          Tara wrote on November 14th, 2010
        • James, this ties into my comment below. Your reliance on the idea that authoritarian parenting will shape the behavior of children isn’t a solid foundation. Empirical studies show that parents tend to be way down on the list of children’s influences. Further, human children have a natural resistance to certain types of influence from parents. A starting point: ‘The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do’ by Judith Rich Harris.

          Also, your first paragraph relies on the assumption that physical violence is the only form of violence. Starting with that as a basis from which to build an ethical framework is problematic. See Foucault and others for examples.

          Andrew wrote on November 14th, 2010
        • Tara you should watch the movie Fat Head. Tom stood outside a McDonalds for over an hour and no one from the restaurant made him come inside and make a purchase.

          I was going to go off on a rant but I see others have done that and you are probably tired of being berated for caring about children. Instead I’ll post a link to Tom’s blog entry on this subject because he covers the topic much better than I could hope to (and he is a lot funnier than I am):

          http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/10/07/theyve-left-their-smarts-in-san-francisco/

          Finally, I can’t resist a little dig at your “at least SOMEONE is enacting change” comment. I think the just concluded election shows what happens when you try to make change people weren’t asking for. :)

          Dave wrote on November 15th, 2010
        • Lol, thank you for deciding not to berate me, I never wanted my comment to turn into a full fledged discussion about the government and the extent of their involvement, honestly, I know much too little to say anything.

          I’m totally a pacifist anyway, I’m not used to stirring up such a fuss! Oops!

          Tara wrote on November 15th, 2010
    • Tara, your opinion has some wisdom that may only be recognizable from a perspective outside the modern parenting paradigm others have recommended. Authoritarian parenting seems to be an outgrowth of the agricultural revolution. Within a hunter-gatherer context, McDonald’s would likely be seen as exploiting not only the fat, salt, and sweet drive, but also the play aspect of human nature.

      I base this on the article below which goes into detail about parenting within hunter-gatherer cultures. I couldn’t find a free version, but the abstract has a hint of the useful info…

      Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence

      Andrew wrote on November 14th, 2010
      • Andrew, I agree that authoritarian parenting is unhealthy and generally results in defiant children. But I’d really like to know more about these “studies”. the notion that parents, who spend 18+ years with their children during their formative years have little influence is absolutely ludicrous.

        I think you’re also misinterpreting a lot of what I’ve said. I never recommended parents should slap the wrist at the mention of burgers and shove spinach and sweetbread into mouths, in fact it should be the opposite, they should negotiate with their children and inform them of why that food is unhealthy, and I have no doubt in my mind if a child is raised in such a nurturing way, he or she would grow up quite healthy.

        But what of the first couple years of the child’s life? Are you proposing we negotiate everything like this with a child who is unable to speak? No, parents must exude some level of authority and control over their children, otherwise the children would not really view them as parents and would probably be more apathetic to their parents’ will and beliefs.

        Tara, thanks for putting up with my rant and I respect your pragmatism.

        James P. wrote on November 14th, 2010
        • I didn’t intend to equate what I referred to as authoritarian parenting with physical coercion/punishment. I’d hoped to make that clear by adding the “physical violence is [not] the only form of violence” bit. I didn’t think physical violence was what you were advocating. The assumption that children are readily malleable by their parents has some known flaws and it’s worth a closer look.

          To save myself (and the rest of you) from a couple thousand word response, all I can do is direct you to the references I’ve provided. The article directly addresses this issue from the hunter-gatherer perspective that I think most primal leaning folks would appreciate.

          The book addresses it with light from recent studies and provides a couple dozen pages of references to those studies. I found it after a recommendation from Steven Pinker, who also wrote the foreword. He’s not one to skimp on the research so I think it will be found lacking in that regard. Whether everyone will agree with it… that would bring us back to politics…

          Andrew wrote on November 14th, 2010
        • I can’t really see how there’s any type of violence besides physical violence, I think anything you could come up with is really just a threat or suggestion of physical violence.

          I stick by conventional wisdom on the parenting topic, though. Not conventional parenting but the wisdom of its effects and how it works or doesn’t. I don’t really feel like paying to read an article…

          James P. wrote on November 14th, 2010
      • Andrew I call BS. This is, as even the mayor of San Francisco said, an unprecedented intrusion by government into the private sector. Putting aside the “authoritarian parenting” BS, what right does any government have to tell a business how it can package and sell its products? It is most definitely arbitrary and capricious and hopefully will be overturned.

        This law will have ZERO impact on childhood obesity in San Francisco or in any other community that decides to copy it. It is the same kind of “we know better than you” thinking that prevents my child from being able to buy whole milk at school.

        Bottom line, leave me to raise my kids the way I see fit and I’ll leave you to raise your kids they way you do.

        Dave wrote on November 15th, 2010
        • Call BS on the law all you want, but you didn’t address a single thing I actually said except to say you weren’t going to address it. Interesting approach, but it doesn’t sound make your argument sound less authoritarian.

          My initial comment was that Tara had a point worth considering. I followed it with evidence and questioning others’ assumptions about parenting. If considering opinions, questioning assumptions, and providing evidence is BS, then I will be forever guilty.

          Andrew wrote on November 15th, 2010
      • There wasn’t a reply link to your reply to me so I hope I don’t confuse the issue by replying again to your original reply :)

        I read the abstract but it doesn’t give me a sense of how it supports your argument. You seem to be opposed to authoritarian parenting but what about authoritarian government?

        Pretty much every restaurant exploits the fat, salt and sweet drive. It is how they stay in business. In other words they provide customers with what they want. But I’ve never seen one hold a gun to anyone’s head and force them into their store to purchase their products.

        So if I understand what you are saying, parents have less influence on their children than they think so we need the government to step in and save them from the evil corporations? No thanks. I’ll take my chances (and risk the health of my children) in the free market than bend to the will of idiots like the San Francisco board of supervisors any day.

        Dave wrote on November 15th, 2010
    • The part that bothered me most about the Happy Meal news is the way this legislated nutrition attempt is trying to direct kids from eating one corn and wheat based item to other corn and wheat based items. The intent is good, but in practice the kids won’t be any better off, and toyless, and now the city is burdened with one more unnecessary law.

      Paul C wrote on November 15th, 2010
  4. San Francisco has NOT banned toys. Mayor Newsome vetoed that legislation.

    http://bit.ly/aWemej

    I think banning the toys is ridiculous. McDonalds is not healthy, with or without toys. And the legislation is ridiculous. McDonalds could easily just add toys as an add on that will show up on your receipt like a soda and fries when you get the combo meal.

    danielle wrote on November 14th, 2010
    • I believe the board has a veto-proof majority (8-3) so they can override his veto. I think what irks me the most about this is that the board of supervisors is hassling a legal, tax paying business, but refuses to pass any ordinances that help the police to control the vagrancy problem. The pan handlers there are getting very aggressive and have even attacked people who won’t give them money. The inmates are running the asylum.

      Dave wrote on November 15th, 2010
  5. Watched the sky diving / skiing video earlier in the week. That looks terror-ifically fun! I’m still determined to sky dive wearing a Tarzan loin cloth and a spear though for the ultimate Grok in the Wild pic lol ;-)

    The Primal Palette wrote on November 14th, 2010
  6. Evolvify is great! Also love the graphics.

    I was in Wengen this summer, but not for ski-flying… only hiking. Great place though

    pierder d wrote on November 14th, 2010
  7. If fast food chains want to sell terrible food, and people continue to purchase it, then so be it. Survival of the fittest, right? I don’t want the government telling me I must eat chemically processed “food” any more than I want them to tell others they can’t have it. Parents should teach their kids not only how to cook but how to grow food. City dweller? Get an herb garden, it’s a fabulous start. Don’t have time to cook? Make time. We all have to prioritize. Thank you for your website, Mark. I am a better mother because of it. Thank you to all the great comments too; you have some extremely intelligent peers.

    Sara wrote on November 14th, 2010
  8. Happy Meals are not to blame for health issues unless you eat only that all day everyday. You have to look at what else the kids are eating throughout the day. Also, you can just buy the toy without having to buy a meal.

    Laz wrote on November 15th, 2010
  9. Interesting fact: If we abolish government, all the problems of the world will disappear. Glenn Beck told me so.

    I’m glad some of you have so much faith in people to handle their own problems. As far as I can tell, 80% of the population is using every brain cell they have to keep from drooling on themselves. I figure the country could use a few more nannies.

    SalParadise wrote on November 15th, 2010
    • The same way your nanny the FDA thinks PB is incredibly unhealthy? Do you want them to tax beef, butter and coconut oil until none of us can afford them?

      It shocks me that people who are nutritionally “enlightened” enough to question the prevailing authority and adopt a primal/paleo diet can somehow argue in favor of government intervention.

      I guess it does support your argument that many people don’t think critically.

      Ingenol wrote on November 15th, 2010
    • What do you care? Are you your brother’s keeper? There’s a huge difference between abolishing government and limiting its powers.

      If people choose to do things that are bad for themselves, so what?

      Dave wrote on November 15th, 2010
      • You’re giving a reach around to the choir on that one, brother!

        SalParadise wrote on November 15th, 2010
  10. Which is exactly what your government desires Sal. Keep em stupid and dependant. Go ahead and have the govt solve your problems. As for me I own my life and will decide what and how much I injest in the way of food-whether good or bad. BTW, once the govt is completley in charge of your health care-we’ll see whether or not they will approve of this great way of life that is the PB. After all, it does buck CW and the all mighty food pyramid. Then we’ll see how much you like the nanny state.

    gt wrote on November 15th, 2010
  11. I have to say for the most part I am impressed with the level of ” discussion / debate ” on this site. It is encouraging when two people disagree yet are able to get there points across with out attacking the other person. As for the food in San Fran. Well I would have to agree with the side of ” more regulization does not equal better” Yes restaurants should have to ability to act and sell in a “free” market. Atleast from what I have seen and researched regulazation does little, but being informed and eduacated allows you to put those who would sell you a subpar product (which Can be interpretive and biased) out of business. Just as you have the right to purchase/ work / live and make choices every day, these are our “votes” for and against the things/ businesses/ people we want. It seems to be just so much easier to not have to weigh heavily our options and take the simple route as it has been innate within us to do so for so long. Unless you actively choose the harder route of thinking, perceiving then acting you will typically fall prey to those attempting to manipulate and influence your decisions for you. I guess my main point is that you are responsible for you and the definition of responsible is being able to respond! Own your decisions and think for yourself, use that frontal lobe we have been blessed with by bacon(fat being the culprit and also an attempt at humor).

    Daniel I. wrote on November 15th, 2010
  12. You misunderstood my points.

    1. Abolish government
    2. Hire a nanny.

    I tried the food pyramid thing, but the weight of the meat and cheese always smushed the bread at the bottom and the whole thing would topple over.

    SalParadise wrote on November 15th, 2010
  13. *mouth hanging open in astonishment*
    Speedflying. Holy cow. Amazing.
    I’m having trouble making complete sentences, even in my head.
    Just, wow.

    Melodious wrote on November 15th, 2010
  14. I wonder when we’ll see some sort of legislation to ban toys in boxes of cereal, or the little surprize that’s in all the CrackerJack boxes.

    Dave, RN wrote on November 15th, 2010
  15. I have no problem with companies like McDonald’s producing crap food. What drives me crazy is when heavily processed food is promoted as healthy. To me that is just an outright lie and should not be allowed.

    Nathan wrote on November 15th, 2010
  16. Just wanted to thank you for the link to the Fiesta Stew recipe. That stuff is amazing, and I love getting my 1.5 cups of kale right in the bowl!

    Karen wrote on November 23rd, 2010
  17. Good day! My wife and I often publish guest articles for other web site owners to help increase exposure to our work, as well as provide good content to weblog owners.
    It really is a win win situation! If you happen to be interested feel free to contact me at: nellyburroughs@gmail.
    com so we can communicate further. Kudos!

    hermaphrodite greek God wrote on May 23rd, 2013

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2014 Mark's Daily Apple