FED UP - The documentary, know more about food!
Options
Replies
-
sugar doesn't immediately turn into fat
you burn it off as glycogen and THEN if you don't use it up you might store it as fat but that's actually difficult for the body to do.
So yeah in the end it comes down to calories in and calories out.
Need more example? Watch a show called supersize vs superskinny. A LOT of the super skinnys survive on sugar in their tea and chocolates. They have like no body fat. Why? Well 1 you burn the sugar and 2 they're under eating. smh0 -
chrissywelsh10 wrote: »Movie Page: fedupmovie.com/
Trailer: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM
I have been educating myself on food and nutrition for years. I follow the guidelines and I pay attention. I am also overweight. I struggle but I own it now, and I'm making great progress. But here is the kickker... I am making progress because i now know what is in the food I eat.
I watched this documentary last night, and I have to say it summed up everything i knew and some things I did not about the food we choose and eat.
I could go into great detail about what facts are in this movie but if I can share some very simple basics with you to help on your weightloss journey then it is this.
-Recommended daily intake of sugar (not to exceed) is 10% of calories on 1200 thats 30gm of sugar on 2000 calories thats 50gm. In 1 can on coke there is 39gms. Already over the limit if you are on a diet.
- When a calorie is not a calorie.... Sugar (as calories) is converted very quickly to fat. Complex carbs use MUCH more calories to convert meaning 200 calories of sugar and 200 calories of complex carbs do not behave the same and would not convert to the same amount of fat.
- The main bulking agent in food in HFCS (High fructose corn syrup) it is cheap and subsidised. When a product says low in fat - it does not mean it is low in calories it is usually packed with HFCS
- Sugar has many names - 57 actually, HFCS, Dextrose, Fructose, food industry uses these many names to confuse us
- There are many % of intake and limits of food labels and there is no % of daily intake of food labels for sugar. Mainly because many of them are way over our RDI.
We can educate ourselves, we can find out the facts and we can take action. Whole foods are better, fresh food is better, and do not be wary of higher fat products, many high fat products are good for us. Olive oil, and greek yogurt being some!
Good Luck,
Chrissy
Hilarious. Sugar is absolutely NOT converted quickly into fat, that actually takes a long time, because it's very last in the chain of things sugar is used for. Also, the "57 names" that the "food industry uses...to confuse us." No, 57 names are for 57 different kinds of sugar. What next? The food industry just uses the names, apple, orange, and pear to confuse us instead of just calling them all fruit?
This is complete ignorance...0 -
FaylinaMeir wrote: »sugar doesn't immediately turn into fat you burn it off as glycogen and THEN if you don't use it up you might store it as fat but that's actually difficult for the body to do.
So yeah in the end it comes down to calories in and calories out.
Need more example? Watch a show called supersize vs superskinny. A LOT of the super skinnys survive on sugar in their tea and chocolates. They have like no body fat. Why? Well 1 you burn the sugar and 2 they're under eating. smh
Hey, is this that show that's based in the UK and partners an extremely thin person and an obese person so that they can go on a food discovery journey together? I think I've seen that. It's pretty interesting, though the diet switch week is icky.0 -
Danielle_Husband wrote: »Here we go.
First, you have conceded that you do not oppose public discourse/discussion/education, though you argued with me about it for hours in the other thread.
If that's what you think, you misunderstood my argument. Others in the thread also seemed to agree with me that NO ONE had opposed public discussion, that that was a straw man. However, it would probably be more productive to just move on from that thread.
Beyond that, try as I might, I cannot see where we are even disagreeing on anything substantial. You blame the corporations more than me, sure, but both of us think however much they are to blame the best response is to engage in the discussion in favor of what we think is true, to disagree or debunk claims that we think are false, wherever they are from. Is that wrong?
Like I said in my last post, I don't even think I'm arguing with you. You seemed annoyed in the prior thread about people criticizing the ideas in Fed Up (while to some extent doing so yourself). Maybe you weren't; maybe I misunderstood you; maybe I am a bad person or stupid for doing so, maybe not. It really doesn't matter much. If you want to talk up the ideas you liked in Fed Up, that's great. I find that the vast majority of people posting about it are focusing on other ideas, that I think are harmful, and therefore I'd like to address those ideas. It doesn't mean I'm against "public discussion" or want to ban speech or any such thing. But it also means that if people express ideas that are bad or pernicious that I should--as part of public discussion--say they are bad or pernicious. Blaming sugar for people getting fat (which I know is not what you are saying, but it's what this thread is about and what the past one was about) is a bad (wrong) idea IMO.
0 -
chrissywelsh10 wrote: »Wow - firstly refined sugar is not the same as fructose. It is not sugar bashing its knowing the limits, as with all foods. WHO - World health organisation has the sugar reports and articles. Here are some "facts" as you liked to call them. FDA, CDC and WHO. Where did I get this information? Nutrition course Vanderbilt University.
<snip>
Is this a lot of information? yes it is, and its not all of it these are my course reading and notes. I hope it does help.
how is "refined sugar" different from Fructose? please explain...because based on my understanding Fructose+Glucose=Sucrose (minus one water molecule)
and let me know which ones I should and shouldn't consume
Glucose?
Sucrose?
Fructose?
Galactose?
Lactose?
Maltose?
Didn't you read? Those are all the same thing! The evil food industry just uses those different names to confuse people!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Danielle_Husband wrote: »Here we go.
First, you have conceded that you do not oppose public discourse/discussion/education, though you argued with me about it for hours in the other thread.
If that's what you think, you misunderstood my argument. Others in the thread also seemed to agree with me that NO ONE had opposed public discussion, that that was a straw man. However, it would probably be more productive to just move on from that thread.
Beyond that, try as I might, I cannot see where we are even disagreeing on anything substantial. You blame the corporations more than me, sure, but both of us think however much they are to blame the best response is to engage in the discussion in favor of what we think is true, to disagree or debunk claims that we think are false, wherever they are from. Is that wrong?
Like I said in my last post, I don't even think I'm arguing with you. You seemed annoyed in the prior thread about people criticizing the ideas in Fed Up (while to some extent doing so yourself). Maybe you weren't; maybe I misunderstood you; maybe I am a bad person or stupid for doing so, maybe not. It really doesn't matter much. If you want to talk up the ideas you liked in Fed Up, that's great. I find that the vast majority of people posting about it are focusing on other ideas, that I think are harmful, and therefore I'd like to address those ideas. It doesn't mean I'm against "public discussion" or want to ban speech or any such thing. But it also means that if people express ideas that are bad or pernicious that I should--as part of public discussion--say they are bad or pernicious. Blaming sugar for people getting fat (which I know is not what you are saying, but it's what this thread is about and what the past one was about) is a bad (wrong) idea IMO.
1. You did misunderstand. That has been discussed to death both here and in the previous thread.
2. I'm one of the people who comments on every single "mean people" thread about the importance of countering problematic posts on here. The issue is that you countered a post that you thought was problematic when really you just misunderstood.
3. You should reread the other thread.
0 -
Want to talk about odd labeling? I've seen gluten free sugar, gluten free soap, and even gluten free shirts.
People will fall for anything.
In terms of gluten free soaps/shampoos... there are chemicals that are derived from gluten. For those with Celiac and some with an intolerance, these chemicals/ingredients can cause a skin reactions. In the case of my wife, she has persistent dry and itchy scalp. This was the case even after trying 15 different shampoo. It was not until she tried a shampoo that did not have this ingredient was she able to get rid of the dry and itchy scalp. I would suggest thinking of it like medicines that are derived from a ingredient you are allergic to. For me, anything that even remotely tied to penicillin will make me ill.
0 -
CupcakeCrusoe wrote: »Ice cream is a big part of my weight loss plan. Obviously I'm failing, if you see my ticker.
If you're prediabetic or have a history in your family of diabetes, sugar should be monitored. Otherwise, it's not -that- big a deal.
Several years ago, I got down to my lowest weight purely counting calories and some bodyweight exercises. I had a half baked chololate chip cookie every single night
. Damn...I should really start doing that again. I had it down to a science. Always saved just enough calories for my cookie or a glass of red wine if I was feeling fancy. 0 -
Is it really necessary for people to be so rude when someone posts something that some people may find interesting. We all know science changes constantly and what works for one may not work for others. But there is no need for the snarkiness that prevails on so many of these forums.
^^^^^
0 -
Is it really necessary for people to be so rude when someone posts something that some people may find interesting. We all know science changes constantly and what works for one may not work for others. But there is no need for the snarkiness that prevails on so many of these forums.
THIS
0 -
Unfortunately, the US ISN'T the highest consumer of sugar. Brazil is. And there are other nations still in front of the US. But the obesity rate is higher in the US than any of these other countries.
Why? Because of over consumption of TOTAL calories, not just sugar. Truth.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
chrissywelsh10 wrote: »
Everyone else pretty much covered the sugar alarmism and biased presentation of the documentary, I just wanted to point out something about this graphic.
When's the last time you saw someone down an entire jar of spaghetti sauce?
See my point? They show you a pretty graphic with surprising numbers, and they don't take a second to factor in something as basic as serving size. That one jar of pasta probably has around 8 servings in it.
I hate these food documentaries. They're just slick propaganda designed to prey on people.
Yes, exactly this.
It's a ridiculous comparison.0 -
Food documentaries are uniformly terrible, with uniformly bad science. They are the TV equivalent of Buzzfeed clickbait.
Learn about nutrition by reading the science, and then you don't have to rely on someone else's fake documentary money-grab.0 -
Tammy_1971 wrote: »Is it really necessary for people to be so rude when someone posts something that some people may find interesting. We all know science changes constantly and what works for one may not work for others. But there is no need for the snarkiness that prevails on so many of these forums.
THIS
Is it not rude to say people are snarky....and call them rude?
Something like this belongs in a blog or a group that advocates no sugar...otherwise you get told you are wrong....and if that is rude be prepared you will see lots of it.
*predicts a mean people thread shortly*
0 -
Tammy_1971 wrote: »Is it really necessary for people to be so rude when someone posts something that some people may find interesting. We all know science changes constantly and what works for one may not work for others. But there is no need for the snarkiness that prevails on so many of these forums.
THISrainbowblu wrote: »Is it really necessary for people to be so rude when someone posts something that some people may find interesting. We all know science changes constantly and what works for one may not work for others. But there is no need for the snarkiness that prevails on so many of these forums.
^^^^^
Y'all each have under 100 posts. You're new here. Even I'm fairly new with 200 some posts. This basic thread (sugar is evil, sugar makes you fat etc) comes up about every other week. The folks with 1000s of posts have run or of patience for politely pointing out the erroneous logic to every single new person who thinks they're providing new information.
0 -
pinklotus_56 wrote: »chrissywelsh10 wrote: »
Everyone else pretty much covered the sugar alarmism and biased presentation of the documentary, I just wanted to point out something about this graphic.
When's the last time you saw someone down an entire jar of spaghetti sauce?
See my point? They show you a pretty graphic with surprising numbers, and they don't take a second to factor in something as basic as serving size. That one jar of pasta probably has around 8 servings in it.
I hate these food documentaries. They're just slick propaganda designed to prey on people.
Yes, exactly this.
It's a ridiculous comparison.
Oh my god, propaganda that gets us to eat less sugar! Are they trying to tear America apart from the inside?
Honestly, what do you think these documentarians have to gain by getting you with their slick propaganda that, at least in their eyes, is healthy?
Also, don't you guys ever get sick of bashing on the new person who somehow doesn't realize they're going to be torn a new one when they don't say something that adheres to CICO? I mean, this is like bashing session number 472 against the person who thought they were being helpful. It's like picking on the guy who says he wants to loose weight, even though you know damn well what they mean...0 -
chrissywelsh10 wrote: »
Everyone else pretty much covered the sugar alarmism and biased presentation of the documentary, I just wanted to point out something about this graphic.
When's the last time you saw someone down an entire jar of spaghetti sauce?
See my point? They show you a pretty graphic with surprising numbers, and they don't take a second to factor in something as basic as serving size. That one jar of pasta probably has around 8 servings in it.
I hate these food documentaries. They're just slick propaganda designed to prey on people.
err no, most of clearly state "per portion serving"
most 'low fat' products are crammed full of sugar to make up for the taste. if you see something that looks unhealthy and yummy but low in calories and you think wow thats just too good to be true? well your right it is too good to be true!
0 -
Red sauce with no sugar is just sad.
That said, you can buy sugar-free jarred sauce (in that brand). I always do and add my own because it's easier than boiling and peeling and smashing tomatoes. Also, tomatoes contain a great deal of natural sugar.0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »pinklotus_56 wrote: »chrissywelsh10 wrote: »
Everyone else pretty much covered the sugar alarmism and biased presentation of the documentary, I just wanted to point out something about this graphic.
When's the last time you saw someone down an entire jar of spaghetti sauce?
See my point? They show you a pretty graphic with surprising numbers, and they don't take a second to factor in something as basic as serving size. That one jar of pasta probably has around 8 servings in it.
I hate these food documentaries. They're just slick propaganda designed to prey on people.
Yes, exactly this.
It's a ridiculous comparison.
Oh my god, propaganda that gets us to eat less sugar! Are they trying to tear America apart from the inside?
Honestly, what do you think these documentarians have to gain by getting you with their slick propaganda that, at least in their eyes, is healthy?
Also, don't you guys ever get sick of bashing on the new person who somehow doesn't realize they're going to be torn a new one when they don't say something that adheres to CICO? I mean, this is like bashing session number 472 against the person who thought they were being helpful. It's like picking on the guy who says he wants to loose weight, even though you know damn well what they mean...
I haven't bashed anyone. I simply agreed with an opinion stated about the photo.0 -
So eat more M&Ms and less spaghetti sauce? Got it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions