Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does anyone else find this creepy?
Crisseyda
Posts: 532 Member
Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?
I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?
Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?
Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
13
Replies
-
Is there a proposition to debate?10
-
Having gone to that website and actually looked at the campaign, they are advocating that you balance your intake with your normal expenditure, and not the other way around. Some of their suggestions are to eat lighter on days that you are less active, for example.
It's true that profit drives them, but they also make a myriad of fitness products under the banner of their parent corporation, so they've got both ends of that spectrum covered.
3 -
I haven't seen it. It's really ridiculous the lengths these companies go through to try to convince people sodas aren't unhealthy. I know they are terrible to drink, I still have one every week or two. But they will never convince me it's healthy or nutritionally neutral.
I guess my reaction would be more eye roll than creepy. Unfortunately, some people believe their claims.3 -
The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
15 -
Not sure why it would be "creepy" given it's the premise on which MFP is based it's probably viewed as perfectly rational here.4
-
Profit drives Adidas, Under Armour, Nike, Trader Joes, etc etc...companies & corporations seldon sincerely have anyone's health & well-being @ stake. Creepy? Not really. Sincere? I highly doubt it.0
-
There are and will always be plenty of products made to supply america's poor eating habits. Going after the manufacturer's or relying on them to mend their ways is pointless. It is going to take a lot of education to make people understand that the type of food and drink they consume will have a negative or positive effect. With the amount of people claiming disability due their own poor choices I am not sure education will show a significant return.0
-
What gives me more a shudder than eye roll is the fact that Coca Cola attempted to secretly fund research to support their agenda that source of calories does not matter for weight loss, but instead that physical activity is more important. But that's not how honest scientific research works. You don't start the research already knowing what it's going to say...
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/03/anti-obesity-astroturfing-fails-coca-cola-and-junk-food-philanthropy/
And now the insipid PSAs? It's too much.3 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.2 -
I don't think it's creepy. Seems like desperation.
The only time I see soda presented positively is in commercials and by some MFP members. Not many health benefits I can think of. One of the best things I have done for myself is only drinking 1 small diet coke a day. I feel better not having it large quantities.0 -
The "Shonky" Award they got was pretty darn funny:
In a scientific revelation right up there with the discovery of penicillin, the GEBN website carefully explains that you gain weight when you take in more calories than you burn off, and vice-versa. The suggestion is that we shouldn’t stop gulping down cans of Coke, we should simply exercise more. So we had to take issue with the GEBN—in the form of a Shonky—which we think looks a lot like a fizzy font of self-serving pseudo-science.1 -
Okay "exercise is the answer" according to coke/pepsi. Now have them explain the RDA of sugar and one serving of their product, time to hit gym I guess.0
-
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.16 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
The source is in the very first post of my discussion.0 -
I'm just here to pass out the hats.
What's up for debate? That soda companies are telling people to exercise? That there are messages on refrigerated containers?
The message isn't any creepier than a sticky note from my husband to pick up milk when I go out.26 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
The source is in the very first post of my discussion.
That's not even based on human studies, but a financial cross-section of "sugar availability"
"Using econometric models of repeated cross-sectional data on diabetes and nutritional components of food from 175 countries, we found that every 150 kcal/person/day increase in sugar availability (about one can of soda/day) was associated with increased diabetes prevalence by 1.1%"
Correlation does not imply causation... just saying.12 -
That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.3
-
I see corporate signage, its everywhere3
-
tincanonastring wrote: »That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.
You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »What gives me more a shudder than eye roll is the fact that Coca Cola attempted to secretly fund research to support their agenda that source of calories does not matter for weight loss, but instead that physical activity is more important. But that's not how honest scientific research works. You don't start the research already knowing what it's going to say...
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/03/anti-obesity-astroturfing-fails-coca-cola-and-junk-food-philanthropy/
And now the insipid PSAs? It's too much.
Everyone funds studies to promote their own product. Like minniestar55 above said, it's not that Nike really has your health and best interest in mind. They just want to sell you more products. I mean, Coca Cola also sells bottled water, but we don't question studies telling us to stay hydrated. Big corn conglomerates will fund studies saying ethanol is somehow "better" than regular gasoline. Is a car company advertising how fuel efficient their vehicles are the same level of creepiness? It's a pretty similar premise. Or Chevron trying to tell you how clean/efficient their fuel is. There are plenty of fat/unhealthy people out there who don't drink soda, it's not the only contributor to obesity. Also, I think we can all agree being more active would be beneficial to society. There are studies showing sitting too much is bad for you, or that those with diabetes and other conditions who add in walking are healthier than those that don't.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
The source is in the very first post of my discussion.
From the abstract of the study you posted:While experimental and observational studies suggest that sugar intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, independent of its role in obesity, it is unclear whether alterations in sugar intake can account for differences in diabetes prevalence among overall populations.
Also, how did they control for caloric intake? By using self-reported data? People are notorious for underestimating what the eat. It happens every day in the general forums; people underestimate their intake but are adamant that they're eating at a deficit. Many who tighten up their logging find that they were eating more than they thought they were.12 -
aqsylvester wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.
You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?
Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.3 -
blues4miles wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »What gives me more a shudder than eye roll is the fact that Coca Cola attempted to secretly fund research to support their agenda that source of calories does not matter for weight loss, but instead that physical activity is more important. But that's not how honest scientific research works. You don't start the research already knowing what it's going to say...
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/03/anti-obesity-astroturfing-fails-coca-cola-and-junk-food-philanthropy/
And now the insipid PSAs? It's too much.
Everyone funds studies to promote their own product. Like minniestar55 above said, it's not that Nike really has your health and best interest in mind. They just want to sell you more products. I mean, Coca Cola also sells bottled water, but we don't question studies telling us to stay hydrated. Big corn conglomerates will fund studies saying ethanol is somehow "better" than regular gasoline. Is a car company advertising how fuel efficient their vehicles are the same level of creepiness? It's a pretty similar premise. Or Chevron trying to tell you how clean/efficient their fuel is. There are plenty of fat/unhealthy people out there who don't drink soda, it's not the only contributor to obesity. Also, I think we can all agree being more active would be beneficial to society. There are studies showing sitting too much is bad for you, or that those with diabetes and other conditions who add in walking are healthier than those that don't.
I can't make you see what they did was clearly wrong and a conflict of interest (also why did they try to hide their involvement in funding the research?), but they did get a "Shonky" award and the fake "nonprofit" promptly closed. But hey, if everyone does it, it must be ok, right? That's logical.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.9 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.
But it's a lot easier to demonize a particular food than it is to look at the context in which people actually become obese.
Full calorie soda consumption is falling in America. If soda caused obesity, we'd be seeing a corresponding rate of weight loss. Spoiler alert . . .18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.
If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.
Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do!
Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.
Can you please provide a source for this?
Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.
You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.
But it's a lot easier to demonize a particular food than it is to look at the context in which people actually become obese.
Full calorie soda consumption is falling in America. If soda caused obesity, we'd be seeing a corresponding rate of weight loss. Spoiler alert . . .
Agree.1 -
tincanonastring wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.
You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?
Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.
Yes, They looked at sugar availability, not sugar consumption, and still found a statistically significant variation in diabetes rates independent of other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. Sounds pretty impressive to me, but I guess they made big mistake there. If only someone had just told them! Doh.1 -
If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.10
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions