Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Does anyone else find this creepy?

135678

Replies

  • Alyssa_Is_LosingItAlyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,684Member Member Posts: 4,684Member Member
    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! :smile:

    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.
    When you say "from time to time", is that including if one is choosing to do it every single day, 365 days a year?

    It would depend on the person's overall diet and lifestyle. For me, with a calorie goal of about 1600 to lose weight, I prefer not to drink my calories, so moderation for me might be one regular soda per month (though I drink diet soda quite often).

    A fit and active male with plenty of LBM who maintains on 3,000 calories and rides their bike 50 miles per day could probably have one a day and it would still be "in moderation."

    Context matters.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?

    qzq5984hf0hk.jpg

    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

    It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.

    It's an advertisement modeled as advice. Not everyone is paying attention enough to understand the underlying misinformation here. The average consumer is the one who gets hurt.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    brower47 wrote: »
    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.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.

    Big food is responsible to CICO? I thought that was big science.

    Um, ok, now I'm confused. Maybe check out who funded the science you speak of?
  • Jcl81Jcl81 Posts: 154Member Member Posts: 154Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    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.

    This. That sticker says "Balance" and that's the most sound advice ever, regardless of their motivation. Moderation in all things. Calories in vs calories out for weight loss,and no - it doesn't matter where those calories come from.
    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't blame one thing.

    Also this. Example: my mom never drinks soda is overweight and got the diabetes; my dad drinks almost a liter (of full calorie pepsi) a day is borderline underweight and doesn't have diabetes. If soda itself caused obesity and diabetes that would be the other way around.

    Terrible analogy, millions of people go outside in the sun every day, some get skin cancer. Yet, you are still told to watch the suns rays and use sunscreen even though not all the millions get it. Same thing for smoking, some people smoke 5 packs a day for 20 years no lung cancer, some smoke for 2 years and get it. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not dangerous or could be.
    edited April 2016
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 20,809Member Member Posts: 20,809Member Member
    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.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.

    Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?

    And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?
    edited April 2016
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    Jcl81 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    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.

    This. That sticker says "Balance" and that's the most sound advice ever, regardless of their motivation. Moderation in all things. Calories in vs calories out for weight loss,and no - it doesn't matter where those calories come from.
    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't blame one thing.

    Also this. Example: my mom never drinks soda is overweight and got the diabetes; my dad drinks almost a liter (of full calorie pepsi) a day is borderline underweight and doesn't have diabetes. If soda itself caused obesity and diabetes that would be the other way around.

    Terrible analogy, millions of people go outside in the sun every day, some get skin cancer. Yet, you are still told to watch the suns raise and use sunscreen even though not all the millions get it. Same thing for smoking, some people smoke 5 packs a day for 20 years no lung cancer, some smoke for 2 years and get it. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

    Exactly, anecdotal evidence is the worst and lowest form of evidence... yet somehow creates the biggest cognitive biases.
  • animalrob37animalrob37 Posts: 88Member Member Posts: 88Member Member
    Of course its creepy. The way some of you act you must be a bunch of corporation apologists, shouldn't you be at a Trump rally or something. Corporations are almost all scum, now that is the truth.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    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.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.

    Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?

    And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?

    "Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?
  • ryry_ryry_ Posts: 4,966Member Member Posts: 4,966Member Member
    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.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.

    Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?

    And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?

    "Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?

    I just don't get the problem. Obviously there motivations are not altruistic but would you prefer the Paunch Burger route instead?

    [video]
    edited April 2016
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingItAlyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,684Member Member Posts: 4,684Member Member
    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.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.

    Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?

    And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?

    "Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?

    It sounds more like an advertisement than a PSA.

    Advertisements for any company's products are there to encourage people to purchase their products, and just about every for-profit company uses them in some way, shape or form.
    edited April 2016
  • tomtebodatomteboda Posts: 2,176Member Member Posts: 2,176Member Member
    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.

    How dare La-Z-Boy make comfortable chairs! And recliners that hold people over 180 lbs. We better get out the anti-corporation boycott materials!
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    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.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.

    Is there a reason why you keep referring to an ad as a "PSA"?

    And would you prefer it if major food companies *didn't* acknowledge that excess calories will lead to weight gain?

    "Balance what you, eat, drink, and do" sure sounds like helpful advice. Who's giving it? Soda companies. Why? They want to encourage people to buy soda... Can you connect the dots?

    Yes. It's an ad. To sell soda. That's why people are asking why you keep referring to it as a "PSA."

    Your outrage seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what it actually is. That space isn't donated to the company, they purchase the right to display the message to us. We can then balance what we know about advertising (it's designed to get us to buy stuff) to help determine if we want to purchase the product.

    Many ads contain "advice-like" content. Some of it is accurate, some of it is less so. If this upsets you, I can only imagine you must be annoyed frequently.

    I knew when I woke up this morning that soda companies wanted me to buy soda. This isn't news. On the whole, I prefer their acknowledgment that excess calories are harmful than them pretending this isn't the case.

    Well, that's good for you, in the bubble where you live. I suppose maybe I've been over-exposed to the human suffering related to the debilitating and mortal effects of diabetes... among so many other issues in our current healthcare crisis.
    edited April 2016
This discussion has been closed.