Does anyone else find this creepy?

Rage_Phish

aqsylvester wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

aqsylvester wrote: »

If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31

The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’

Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.

It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.

That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.

You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?

You're welcome to post another thread regarding that topic.

lol

cwolfman13

aqsylvester wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

aqsylvester wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

aqsylvester wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

aqsylvester wrote: »

If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31

The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’

Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.

It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.

That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.

You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?

@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
The Mayo Clinic article looks like it's written at a 6th grade level, like most patient education sheets. It doesn't mention diet at all. Is this supposed to mean that diet plays no part in the development of Type 2 Diabetes?

As far as your question: What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?

Yeah, that's another topic and a little convoluted. Not sure where you're trying to go there, but just start another topic.

Diet plays a role in the sense that over consumption can cause obesity, which can cause T2D. There is no one food responsible for it though...

Diabetes is at its core a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. I don't know how else to say this: you're just plain wrong.

Ask the people who have type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes what "one food" their doctor tells them to limit or count...

Now you've completely moved the goal posts.

Having diabetes and being at risk for diabetes are two different things. Just because a person with diabetes processes sugar differently than someone without diabetes, does not mean that carbohydrates/sugar cause diabetes.

The main risk factors are well-known and are outlined in the Mayo Clinic article I posted.

Just to be 100% clear. You are implying to me that Type 2 Diabetes is not caused by over-consumption of carbohydrates. If that is the case, we cannot agree to disagree. You are just plain wrong. Regardless of risk factors, the disease would not happen without the over-consumption of carbohydrates. Period.

Type 2 diabetes is caused by overconsumption of energy in general and inactivity all of which lead to obesity...and while it is possible to be diabetic and not be obese, most people who have type 2 are in fact, substantially overweight or obese.

Sugar is a contributor in that it is really easy to eat a crap ton of calories in sugar and overeat.

You know all of those little gel packs that cyclists and runners and whatnot use to fuel their endurance activities? They're pretty much sugar...I don't see too many cyclists at substantial risk for diabetes. If anything, many of them are at greater risk for general malnourishment given some of their riding weights.

auddii

Nope. Not creepy.

karmpaul

I'd hate to see how you would react to things that are actually creepy, must be terrified lol

tomteboda

animalrob37 wrote: »

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.

You do realize that "corporation" just means "legally recognized group of people doing business together"?

tincanonastring

tomteboda wrote: »

animalrob37 wrote: »

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.

You do realize that "corporation" just means "legally recognized group of people doing business together"?

Yeah, evil people.

ETA: Shill.

stevencloser

Next week:
Coca Cola: "Have a nice day! "
You: "That motherfudger."

kgeyser

Dear Posters,

This topic has been reported numerous times, so you all know that means. Topic is closed for review.

kgeyser
MFP Moderator