Fed Up Documentary
Options
Replies
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
Hmmm, I would be looking for a new physician. Check out these links.
gastricbypasskills.blogspot.com/2014/08/metabolic-syndrome-is-myth.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02325.x/full0 -
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!0
-
SanteMulberry 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.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
Lol. I'm familiar with his "research" Weird that fructose isn't any more lipogenic than other sugar, when tested using physiological dosages.
His books are basically self validation for weak willed people. It's not your fault you're fat and lazy it's fructose' fault, but not fructose from fruit since that is good fructose. Gfto with that nonsense
This thread is awesome tho0 -
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.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That some people don't eat sustainable or sensible diets based on CICO doesn't mean CICO doesn't work.
That low fat was or is a bad idea seems to me more of a reason to be skeptical of the new sugar as scapegoat, not less.
Not at all. Essential fatty acids are just that--essential. There is NOTHING essential about table sugar. I don't eat any added sugar at all and I am much healthier for it.
And how much of these EFAs do you really need a day? Not much so it's a joke to centre a diet around something you need so little of and claim moral superiority, which is all you seem to be doing here.0 -
SanteMulberry 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.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
Lol. I'm familiar with his "research" Weird that fructose isn't any more lipogenic than other sugar, when tested using physiological dosages.
His books are basically self validation for weak willed people. It's not your fault you're fat and lazy it's fructose' fault, but not fructose from fruit since that is good fructose. Gfto with that nonsense
This thread is awesome tho
I have no idea how this took me so long but I just recently saw your Food porn thread over at BB. It only took my 3 years to find it. Huge fail on my part. It's very nice..
0 -
http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.-1
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions