Fed Up Documentary
Options
Replies
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You know what else gets tiresome? You trying to make every thread about smallish aging post-menopausal women, as if you are 90% of the population.SanteMulberry wrote: »After all the time Sara dedicated to responding I was hoping for more from SanteMulberry. I'm disappointed. But not really surprised.
I do have other things to do you know--besides participating in the forums. I don't often participate here because it is very time consuming. Why add the "not really surprised"--what is that supposed to mean? I have likely had many more posts than Sara in this thread. What ARE you talking about? Really--many of you here need to learn how to respond to the points that people make without resorting to attacks on the character of the one with whom you disagree. It really gets very tiresome.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
If this was the case, you wouldn't feel compelled to respond to EVERY post that even hints at you. You don't come across as trying to help anyone. You come across as someone feeding off attention.
0 -
thesupremeforce wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You know what else gets tiresome? You trying to make every thread about smallish aging post-menopausal women, as if you are 90% of the population.SanteMulberry wrote: »After all the time Sara dedicated to responding I was hoping for more from SanteMulberry. I'm disappointed. But not really surprised.
I do have other things to do you know--besides participating in the forums. I don't often participate here because it is very time consuming. Why add the "not really surprised"--what is that supposed to mean? I have likely had many more posts than Sara in this thread. What ARE you talking about? Really--many of you here need to learn how to respond to the points that people make without resorting to attacks on the character of the one with whom you disagree. It really gets very tiresome.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
If this was the case, you wouldn't feel compelled to respond to EVERY post that even hints at you. You don't come across as trying to help anyone. You come across as someone feeding off attention.
I think she's a troll. I don't believe she is sincere at all, atleast I hope not. That much ignorance can't be real.-1 -
Ahhh cynical cranky MFP how I have missed thee.0
-
thesupremeforce wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You know what else gets tiresome? You trying to make every thread about smallish aging post-menopausal women, as if you are 90% of the population.SanteMulberry wrote: »After all the time Sara dedicated to responding I was hoping for more from SanteMulberry. I'm disappointed. But not really surprised.
I do have other things to do you know--besides participating in the forums. I don't often participate here because it is very time consuming. Why add the "not really surprised"--what is that supposed to mean? I have likely had many more posts than Sara in this thread. What ARE you talking about? Really--many of you here need to learn how to respond to the points that people make without resorting to attacks on the character of the one with whom you disagree. It really gets very tiresome.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
If this was the case, you wouldn't feel compelled to respond to EVERY post that even hints at you. You don't come across as trying to help anyone. You come across as someone feeding off attention.
I think she's a troll. I don't believe she is sincere at all, atleast I hope not. That much ignorance can't be real.
Oh you'd be surprised, they say ignorance is bliss and there are some damned happy people in this country because of it lol. I agree with the troll theory though.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You admitted to trolling earlier in this thread when you said how much you enjoy the reaction you get. So, yes, it is your thing.SanteMulberry wrote: »herrspoons 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.
Probably because the general and special theories are testable, and provide consistent results on repetition of those tests.
Metabolic syndrome is just a load of bollocks with no evidence to support it, and a vehicle to sell books to dimwits who prefer complicated lies to simple truths.
Troll on, luv.
I believe that the definition of an internet troll is someone who goes on internet forums and insults and antagonizes other posters. It is not my thing but apparently it is yours.
No, that is not what I said. I said that I generally don't visit the forums anymore but occasionally, I find them amusing. That is not the same as what you have accused. I really don't "enjoy the reaction I get"--those are your words. I find the snarky reactions often annoying and sometimes interesting in a clinical kind of way (I have a degree in counseling psychology) but the part that amuses me is the way that some people in the forums apparently think that insults of random individuals on the internet is something that is very important to do.
Nice backpedal. lolz.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »Man, how did I miss this garbage fire?! So in.
Stand back. The flags have arrived.
Sweet! I don't think I've gotten any today. I already have two posts hanging out in the wind for them to flag like a semaphore based debate.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »Man, how did I miss this garbage fire?! So in.
Stand back. The flags have arrived.
Sweet! I don't think I've gotten any today. I already have two posts hanging out in the wind for them to flag like a semaphore based debate.
ROFL that's a good comp sci joke there!0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Man, how did I miss this garbage fire?! So in.
Stand back. The flags have arrived.
Sweet! I don't think I've gotten any today. I already have two posts hanging out in the wind for them to flag like a semaphore based debate.
ROFL that's a good comp sci joke there!
It's a twofer! Flag semaphore as well!0 -
What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
-5 -
I love having my comments flagged, I bet it's the troll.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
Trololol.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion.SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »Quite stunned still to have read this comment and not seeing others respond to the fallacies it presents to the readers:
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".
It is so annoying to see people spout opinions based on their own misinformed collection of thoughts and try to present themselves as informed.
Firstly, CICO does not equal low calorie. Secondly, people do not quickly regain because they were malnourished from only paying attention to CICO. One can be entirely well-nourished, following a moderate deficit, CICO and IIFYM and still regain once they hit their magical goal because they are not eating at maintenance - they are eating in surplus. What causes them to eat at a suprlus? A whole list of things that are entirely individual and one could spend days discussing them.
You want to eat a certain way because it works for you? Great. You want to share what works for you? Awesome. But please - stop demonizing and misinforming others with your incorrect conclusions and opinions and trying to present them as factual. The use of words like 'generally' and 'often' does not actually make your statements any less wrong.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Since you want to be so critical of everyone else and have excuses for everything, why don't you opt your page and diary so that we can see how it's done. Every time someone comes along being all high and mighty about what they eat and trashing their own friends, their diaries are closed.
Also, you are doing a pretty pathetic job of backing up all your claims. It's apparent the are just opinions not facts. And you've back peddled pretty well I must say.
Open your diary if you feel it's necessary to trash others. Don't be a hypocrite.
I make no excuses--I have taken my health in my hands and it's all good. I have much personal information on my page that I do not open to everyone on the internet--sorry. I have posted pages of my food diaries before. If I feel like it, I will but I only give access to those I choose. I have NEVER "back-pedalled" by the way. I remain of the same opinions as those I had when I began this "discussion". You reveal your mindset when you speak of others "...being all high and mighty...". My diary is open to my friends and I cannot imagine any scenario in which I would select you for a friend. Sit on it.
Me want to be friends with you? Yea, never has or will ever cross my mind.. I like strong friends that don't post nonsense using age, hormones, gender etc as a crutch.
Me thinking I'm high and mighty? Maybe, maybe not. I'm no where near the best on this site but I think I'm pretty f'ing awesome for sure. I love me some me!!!!
LOL--now that is amusing!
I can't believe that you actually posted this:
"...Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion..."
Since when do you get to set the rules for what anyone comments about the eating habits of others? LOL!
Probably at the same time that you imagined you get to set the rules about who should but out.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
I care. I care if someone is posting something that is inaccurate or misleading. I am pretty sure that people reading threads care that what they are reading and potentially believing is correct also.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
You say that we should move on since we "don't agree" with what someone else is saying. That implies that you think we have a difference of opinion. That's not the case. There are people spewing misinformation and we'd like to do our best to set right those wrongs.0 -
Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
0 -
Very few fall into the former group. In my experience they generally are well educated and versed in analysis.herrspoons wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
One thing I have learned over the years is that some people respond to polite, well thought out arguments and others just need a good kicking.
So it goes.
Most need a boot.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
That makes sense.
I have enormous trouble with the "I can't believe people are that dumb" part. I have to state here – I don't live in the US, and although I knew that a lot of junk food is consumed in the states, Fed Up! was the first documentary I saw on the matter, and I was shocked by what is served in food cantines. Talking with my Mom and my boyfriend though (who is a doctor) they pointed out that most likely, that has been normalised to a point where people don't even think about eating in a different way.
Let's take a personal example – I consider a breakfast of bread-based products and something nutella as a perfectly healthy part of an everyday meal.
Now, I know that nutella is high-calorie not the healthiest food on the market, but if I didn't know better, I would most likely keep it in my diet even if I was trying to lose wight, because it just appears to be healthy to me. Even better – my grandmother, would routinely cook us fried chicken breasts and serve it with fried eggplants, for example, because in her mind it was good, filling food for growing children.
What I am saying is that I guess the issue is not stupidity, but just plain ignorance. Nutrition, to my knowledge, is not something taught in school, and in any case most definitely wasn't 40-50 years ago, when the parents of these obese kids were in school. Also, at the time, eating fat, calorie-heavy foods made sense as there was a lot more manual labour and thus energy needed to be restored. In the case of my grandparents, there is and ben more subtle reason: they just were not very rich people and could not afford tons of food. So pimping up the meals with lots of fat helped them get their daily calorie-intake. Neither situations, however, apply today.
Now before anyone takes me at face value, this is obviously a hypothesis based on personal observation of my peers which is in no way backed by facts.
As for cocaine... well, I am using cocaine as an example because that is the drug the study used. It is weird indeed though, now that I think about it, another study I am reading states that sugar releases opioids. So it would make a lot more sense to compare it with drugs from the opioid family. I think it has something to do with cocaine and sugar activating the same neural pathways? I dunno. I should look more into that, though. It is curious indeed. (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT stating that this means sugar is an opioid or that sugar has the same effects as cocaine. The article in question is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461 The lead researcher's page can be found here: http://www.drnicoleavena.com)
And yes, I do have a bit of a weird obsession with food addiction at the moment. Please note: I don't NEED food to be addictive, I just find the possibility that it MIGHT be really interesting, along with the consequences of that. Mostly, I think that if there were evidence to sustain that hypothesis, it could be a step forward in battling obesity as it would allow for better measures to be taken. (Not necessarily regulating food companies, but in terms of the treatment given to patients.) 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions