HikeArizona.COM

Really????

http://blogs.usda.gov/2014/08/29/us-for ... low-roast/

What's next, telling us to eat tofu hot dogs when we go camping? Can't believe the government wasted money to pay someone to suggest healthier alternatives to an American classic. :SB:

You object to eating fruit?

Jim_H wrote:You object to eating fruit?

I have nothing against eating fruit, it's someone telling us to screw around with the tried and true ingredients of a s'more on the taxpayer dime. Starts with this and next thing you know the feds are telling you that it's not healthy to drink beer around a campfire.

I can see this going the way of the recent border trouble thread, very fast.

SpiderLegs wrote:Starts with this and next thing you know the feds are telling you that it's not healthy to drink beer around a campfire.

What a coincidence that as you were posting that message, I was listening to this tale most morbid and drear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1l40SUGabg

Jim_H wrote:I can see this going the way of the recent border trouble thread, very fast.

What, they allow illegal aliens to make and eat s'mores on their way through Arizona?
What's next, s'mores stations next to the water stations? :whistle:

I've never liked s'mores. So shoot me.

azbackpackr wrote:I've never liked s'mores. So shoot me.

You're not human!

azbackpackr wrote:I've never liked s'mores. So shoot me

I'm with you on this one Liz! :yuck:

I'm not a fan of the marshmallow part, or should I say marshmelon, if you get the reference, but melted chocolate is pretty good.

S'mores or not, it's not the Forest Service's job to tell us what to eat. If this came out in a magazine or a blog not on the taxpayer dime I wouldn't care.

At the risk of this become more than I care to get into, I read the blog, and at no point does it tell us what to eat. It makes suggestions for people who want to cut sugar intake, but it never tells us what to eat.

Those anti-government types see what thay want to see Jim. ;)

40 years ago "they" told us butter was bad for us. plz: Told us to use "margarine" instead. Turns out butter is good for you, and a oily spread made of unpronouceable Greek & Latin words isn't. :yuck: Go figure ...

Again, not the Forest Service's job to tell us how or what to eat or how to cut out sugar in a press release. I eat lots of fruits and veggies and fully support a healthy diet. We will have to agree to disagree. It's not the message it's the messenger. It would be like the EPA sneaking in a sentence or two in a press release about how I shouldn't drive an SUV if I go for a nice fall drive to look at the leaves changing colors.

If you come to HAZ-Fest Jim I will buy you a beer and discuss this like gentlemen.

@kingsnake Interesting that you brought up the butter example, as that stems from hearings by George McGovern in the 1970s, where despite dissent from a vocal minority, recommendations were made to tell Americans to cut total fat consumption, cholesterol consumption, and saturated fat consumption. The hearings traced their roots to highly flawed Ancel Keys study which more or less birthed the lipid hypothesis of Cardiovascular Disease. The Keys study is one of the worst pieces of highly flawed scientific garbage, where entire data set were thrown out, because they conflicted with his lose association between total fat intake and cardiovascular disease rates. These were populations with low rates of cardiovascular disease but high fat consumption (and from animal sources, gasp). Back to the 1970s, and suddenly fat, from animal sources, which humans had been eating for eons, became a devil, and the replacement that food manufacturers put into food: sugar, became much more common. However, despite decreases in fat and cholesterol intake, and those so called, "miracle drugs", statins, which came on the market in the 1980s, cardiovascular disease rates increased. Diabetes, anyone?

When it comes to what anyone should eat for health reasons, you can almost bet that if you buy it out, or if it comes in a box, bottle or container, or has more than a few ingredients, it probably shouldn't be eaten. If it required modern industrial technologies to render it edible; like soybean, corn, canola, cottonseed or so many other seed oils (but not olive oil) it shouldn't be eaten. If it was born in a lab, it probably shouldn't be eaten.

@SpiderLegsI won't be there, but we could discuss it now like gentlemen.

Is there a specific sentence or paragraph you might be able to quote that offends you? I didn't read anything in it that caused me to think they were telling anyone what to eat.

@Jim_H

There is a local nutritionist named Dee McCaffrey who is pretty amazing. Her simple rule is that if you look at the list of ingredients on the packaging and its not something your grandmother could have made in her kitchen-- then you shouldn't eat it.

@Jim_H Just the general gist of this quote "You’re still having campfire fun, but the focus is on a healthier evening snack". It's not the place of the Forest Service to tell me or my family how to eat. Anyone who knows me knows that I get rather picky about what I eat sometimes, so it's not the message that bothers me.

All I have to say about this is "You're killing me smalls"

Tough_Boots wrote:simple rule is that if you look at the list of ingredients on the packaging and its not something your grandmother could have made in her kitchen-- then you shouldn't eat it.

My grandmother put raisins in her pasta sauce :yuck: so I wouldn't even go by that metric.