Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
That;s a lot of assumptions. And again, I did/do very well with IIFYM.
Now, I am not disagreeing that post-menopausal women often do better on higher fat/higher protein and low'ish carbs. But you are making a very big leap there - the poster is losing weight and it is rather presumptuous to infer that she would do better using a different methodology. The biggest key to weight loss is adherence.
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
Excuse me for pointing this out, but you talk about giving advice but you seem to have a lot of trouble doing anything with long-term results that would indicate that you have any special sort of knowledge. However, judging by your past and the general failure of about 90% of people to maintain weight loss for even 2 years it seems unlikely that you will not rejoin this weight gain cycle. Not only this but you seem to be one of those who is always looking for the silver bullet and I don't see how you can foresee any continued success, but I wish you the best in any event.
Not at all. Had you been reading well, you would have seen that I have not gained even one pound in 4 years. This is truly a first for me but it is because I discovered a new way of eating that truly nourishes my body while helping me to lose body fat. I have been on maintenance for about a year. You really ought to read more carefully before you jump to incorrect conclusions.
Seriously, I've started just ignoring most of what you say because it makes no sense and your posts hobble from one excuse to another. 4 Years? Big deal I went 5 before life circumstances caused me to regain, but you'll find another excuse when you do hit that regain.
I'm not sold on the fact that Sante is as successful as she claims to be. She refuses to post a before and after picture, her profile is is extremely private and the her posts on this thread are all over the place. I don't think she's being truthful, and I will change my mind about that when she produces a before and after picture.0 -
Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
Okay, if that's where she really is getting her info - all credibility is out the window.
Was it ever in the window?
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
Okay, if that's where she really is getting her info - all credibility is out the window.
Was it ever in the window?
No. I'm pretty sure she's late for a reiki session right now.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Caloric deficit works for everyone. Even you, you just haven't tried hard enough.SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
I'm 34 and eat whatever I please, and I'm in the best shape of my life. I'm an anomaly too I guess?
Well, good for you! You are not a post-menopausal, obese women.
I am 52 years old. I have been going through menopause. I lost over 125 pounds following CI/CO and it worked fine for me.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
Yo-Yoing does not mean caloric deficit does not work. It means they probably had a poorly constructed diet to begin with that wasn't sustainable. You don't seem to grasp the notion that you can't just say one thing is one way because something happened.
Correlation =/= Causation
You need to apply a little bit of critical thinking and analysis before just throwing out theories that have no basis.
No--YOU need to read more closely and THINK. Calories in and out are ALWAYS the basis of gain or loss of body fat. I have NEVER denied this. But the margin of error for a smallish. aging, post-menopausal woman is so small that another approach is needed. It only takes 100 calories extra per day to put on about 100 pounds in a decade. That 100 calories is an extremely small window to hit each and every day. Now I let the composition of my diet do the planning for me.
you said in a previous post that CICO does not work for you, and some others, but now you say that it works for everyone? Backtrack much….
0 -
DaniTronMcNally wrote: »I'll eat it if cavemen ate it.... I have veggies, eggs, meat, whole grains.... (and sometimes a hot cocoa....) and I've been losing weight just fine. I'm eating at almost maintenance, about 50 calories under normally but I've lost 3 kilos in as many weeks. Time to up the food!
lol because cavemean had "whole grains" and hot cocoa…..wow...0 -
DaniTronMcNally wrote: »I'll eat it if cavemen ate it.... I have veggies, eggs, meat, whole grains.... (and sometimes a hot cocoa....) and I've been losing weight just fine. I'm eating at almost maintenance, about 50 calories under normally but I've lost 3 kilos in as many weeks. Time to up the food!
lol because cavemean had "whole grains" and hot cocoa…..wow...
toplel0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
<b>The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. </b> If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it.
Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt. 
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.00006980 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
They're actually quite good.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »It is my opinion that I am a billionaire.
So...what now...do I clap, or click my heels, or what?
that can be factually disproven.
Stop being a *kitten*.
But so can "sugar is addictive." So....YOU stop being a j*******!
My point is simply that refined sugar can be addictive. Some people resist the urge to pound their body with it and others do not. Those that do not are typically over weight and/or unhealthy.
Would you disagree ?
Yes, I would, in fact, disagree.
I am not "resisting the urge to pound my body" with that Hershey's bar which has been sitting out at work for the past 2 days, free for the taking. I don't care for Hershey bars. If it were Vosges, or even Lindor, I might be tempted.
...but you do resist the urge to pound 3 hershey bars every day of the week right ?
You misunderstand. There is no "urge" to resist. As I stated, I don't care for Hershey's. I find it repulsive.
Nope. Hershey's is inferior chocolate. I don't care how much sugar they put in it. Try some real chocolate.
Sorry but Reese's Cups are the tastiest candy in the world and I've had some expensive "classy" posh chocolates before. Nothing is better than a Reese's.
QFT!!!
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
<b>The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. </b> If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
<b>The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. </b> If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
There have been credible links posted in this thread already that show the issues with the claims made in the documentary.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
http://www.foodinsight.org/FedUp-review
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
<b>The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. </b> If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded."
I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt. 
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply. 0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
<b>The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. </b> If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
<b>The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. </b> If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
I always have time to give an honest answer to an honest question. Some of the hot topics here may be non-intuitive to the newer members but you find them out pretty quickly! 0 -
The problem with this documentary is that we really don't eat more processed foods or more sugar now than we have in the past. The 50s were huge for processed foods, aasfood manufacturers dove in head first with the convenience factor due to women beginning to work in the post war economy.
And also, it wasn't until the 70s that manufacturers were required to actually list ingredients or nutritional information, so there's no telling what was in all those foods.0 -
I could show you a correlation between American obesity and the rise of McDonald's, but I think it has more to do with cheap, convenient food than with McDonald's per se.0
-
Lots of things correlate with each other. The rise in autism correlates with the rise in organic food production. Correlations are meaningless.0
-
I'm not trying to be snarky, but how can you make a judgment about a program you haven't even started yet? Best of luck to you, but I think I'll stick to what I've been doing: calorie counting.0
-
tigersword wrote: »Lots of things correlate with each other. The rise in autism correlates with the rise in organic food production. Correlations are meaningless.
I like this one too:
0 -
A couple of years ago as I was losing weight, a person I worked with spotted me eating a peanut butter sandwich and began to lecture me as to why I would never lose weight because of the sugar in my bread. He proceeded to tell me that if I wanted to be successful I was going to have to stop eating bread. PSSSSH! I've lost 125 lbs, kept it off for two years and I have eaten all kinds of bread, all kinds.0
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Lots of things correlate with each other. The rise in autism correlates with the rise in organic food production. Correlations are meaningless.
I like this one too:
I have warned people about this for years, but does anyone listen? Noooooo.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
Okay, if that's where she really is getting her info - all credibility is out the window.
Was it ever in the window?
:laugh:
0 -
DaniTronMcNally wrote: »I'll eat it if cavemen ate it.... I have veggies, eggs, meat, whole grains.... (and sometimes a hot cocoa....) and I've been losing weight just fine. I'm eating at almost maintenance, about 50 calories under normally but I've lost 3 kilos in as many weeks. Time to up the food!
lol because cavemean had "whole grains" and hot cocoa…..wow...
I hope she includes a lot of worms and bugs in her diet.
(On a serious note, crickets are supposed to have a good amount of protein
)
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Lots of things correlate with each other. The rise in autism correlates with the rise in organic food production. Correlations are meaningless.
I like this one too:
You are so awesome :laugh:
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Lots of things correlate with each other. The rise in autism correlates with the rise in organic food production. Correlations are meaningless.
I like this one too:
I have warned people about this for years, but does anyone listen? Noooooo.
0 -
I blame OBAMA! He said things were going to change! But I've gained 20 pounds since he took office!0
-
Sorry but Reese's Cups are the tastiest candy in the world and I've had some expensive "classy" posh chocolates before. Nothing is better than a Reese's.
Somebody doesn't get out much. Give me one piece of good dark German chocolate any day.
0 -
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
Not saying this is you, but one bit of my frustration is that there seems to be such a strange desire by some posters for sugar to be addictive. My issue with the documentary (besides that) is how it's been sold, the whole "Oh my, we've been tricked!" and "people don't know how much sugar they are eating!" (see the OP for a good example, as well as every other thread on the documentary here). In fact, I do know how much sugar I eat (anyone at MFP could) and the sources of it weren't remotely surprising. (I don't eat lots of prepackaged stuff, though, and tend to know what's in those I do, and even if I chose not to pay attention to what I ate I wouldn't blame corporations or whatever.) I think it's insane to claim that people are fat because there's a little sugar in their ketchup or bread (and I don't even like ketchup or supermarket bread). It's the new scapegoat, and--as I said earlier in this thread--similar to the "fat makes you fat!" nonsense of the '80s and '90s. I also am proof positive it's possible to get fat quite easily without eating lots of highly processed stuff as I haven't for years.
As for people being fat because they are supposedly too dumb to know high calorie food is fattening, I am willing to believe that lots of people are really dumb, but I don't buy that they are THAT dumb. People aren't fat because they don't get how it happens or because they think that candy bars or hot pockets are low calorie. They are fat because they make choices about what to prioritize, and for some--and not necessarily for unreasonable reasons--that means they don't feel like putting in the effort (which might be a lot, depending on where they live) and money to get healthier options and to cook on a regular basis. They go with convenience foods, which also happen to be readily accessible and pretty cheap. (Not cheaper than whole foods necessarily, although than some, sure, but add in the time costs and they probably become so for many.) Also, even more significantly and apparently poo-poo'd by the documentary, people are fat because the activity level in our society has fallen dramatically for lots of reasons, mainly relating to jobs, where people live, and cars.
It's weird cocaine is always the example (much more than heroin), since I don't think cocaine is really supposed to be all that addictive in the scheme of things. But what that rat study indicates isn't really about addictiveness, but that cocaine, and sugar, stimulate the pleasure pathways in your brain, which is hardly surprising--eating in general does, sex does, there are obvious evolutionary reasons this would be so. Cocaine kind of co-opts that, so people find it pleasurable, but I don't actually think the essence of addiction is finding something pleasurable. I find many things pleasurable that I am not therefore addicted to, and when I did consider myself addicted to something it was in large part because I felt like I needed it, although that was not pleasurable at all.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions