why does sugar make us fat
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Similar to how some think that being Low Carb or Keto means that unlimited amounts of fat are a good idea and think nothing of eating a diet built around eggs, bacon, coconut oil, whipping cream and supplements and that it would be impossible to gain weight eating this way.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt also put it nicely above, people are always looking for a scapegoat when it comes to explaining why they've gained weight. Whether it be the Low Fat craze in the 90s or the way the pendulum has swung the other way and now sugar is demonized, people always are looking for an explanation that excuses the fact that they simply just ate too much and moved too little...WinoGelato wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Similar to how some think that being Low Carb or Keto means that unlimited amounts of fat are a good idea and think nothing of eating a diet built around eggs, bacon, coconut oil, whipping cream and supplements and that it would be impossible to gain weight eating this way.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt also put it nicely above, people are always looking for a scapegoat when it comes to explaining why they've gained weight. Whether it be the Low Fat craze in the 90s or the way the pendulum has swung the other way and now sugar is demonized, people always are looking for an explanation that excuses the fact that they simply just ate too much and moved too little...
Agree. It can be a difficult thing to come to grips with...2 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say it is due to less people actually cooking their own food, expanding portion sizes, longer hours working at jobs that require less physical activity, more time sitting in front of computers and TVs, less time out walking, playing, doing physical activity of some kind, more time sitting with a cell phone in hand.
This doesn't apply to everyone, but there are so many people doing so much less activity and eating more easy to prepare or pre-prepared foods that aren't necessarily the best fits in a well balanced diet. Activity is the thing we really have less of these days than we did 20 years ago. There is an app for everything. Everything can be delivered or done by a service. While calorie intake may have gone up somewhat my observation would be that calorie output has gone down a lot for many people due to changes in our work, home and social lives. Thus the CICO equation is being thrown more towards CI>CO5 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
IMO, excess calories and a shortage of activity...
Agreed. As well as easier access to all sorts of foods as @amusedmonkey mentioned. It also wasn't a sudden thing, this type of change takes years for the effects to start to show.
I'm not certain that I could dig up the stats, but West Point has kept records on its recruits going back to the 1880's. The BMI's of incoming classes have been rising since the Industrial Revolution.
While I'm sure that muscle mass rose with better nutrition, at some point, people started to get fatter too.
The widespread availability of food is something that has been building for years. Even throughout the Great Depression, the weight of incoming recruits continued to climb.
The increase in food availability (and corresponding weight gain) was slower before, but with modern globalization, it's become exponential.
This climb was taking place well before we could place the blame on any one macro-nutrient.2 -
Because you believe it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
This is very true, and it was part of the message. Susan Powter used to make it seem like you could eat scads of bagels and mounds of pasta.
She and her cohorts were banking on the same thing keto proponents bank on - satiety signals putting a stop on consumption before caloric excess became a problem.
Then the junky food manufacturers like Snackwells hopped on the bandwagon and people transferred that "well, it's low fat and I can eat plenty!" type of thinking to those cookies and we were all gaining weight.
I gained weight doing that kind of low fat just like I gained weight doing low carb.
And there's the point. It doesn't matter what you eat, it matters how much you eat. Macronutrients aren't magic. They don't force fat onto your body. Excess intake does.3 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.
Does Chex Mix have more sugar than Doritos or other crisps/chips? Curious
You can look it up. You have the same access to the internet that we do.
I would hazard a guess that the info is even available in the database here if you're interested.6 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
This^
I had a co-worker (many years ago) who would eat pounds of grapes....pounds of them while on a diet. The justification was, they were fat free. Just because her diet was very low fat she "didn't have to watch portions"
Eliminating one thing from our diets won't automatically make us thin....it's ALWAYS going to come down to calories.2 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Robert Lustig has been on record saying things that even a high school student who never paid attention in Biology would know are factually wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7QXFJNKWXs
Weird video, it first shows the actual facts and then the crap Lustig talks.
Not sure what the writing was about..doesnt mirror him and not gonna pay attention to youtube as not a good source. What caused the obesity rise in our two nations if it wasnt sugar or junk food? Did everyone just suddenly over eat? Asking your opinion mate not being confrontational
Yes, people have consistently been eating more calories. More of all kinds of calories.
Why? Food is more easily available and cheap (in terms of time cost, as well as money), and traditional cultural checks on eating (that one eat homecooked meals at regular times as a family or bring lunch or go out to eat only occasionally or not overindulge on treats, stuff like that) are largely going away. Unsurprisingly, this happened more easily in the US (a less culturally-bound society where people pick up and toss away cultural things more readily and also move a lot) than in other countries, but you all are catching up, probably.
Add to this that much of the movement necessary in the past (for jobs and household chores) are no longer necessary, so movement must be intentional in a new way, and that (again, the US was ahead on this) many people work sedentary jobs that they must commute to by car, and even live in places without sidewalks, it's really not that surprising.
We also have more variety and tempting foods available to us -- even compared to when I was a kid in the '80s I can get food from tons of restaurants delivered, go out and have a meal from almost anywhere in the world, there are far more options at supermarkets, etc. Choice and variety tends to result in more eating, unsurprisingly.
(There are actually studies of the WW2 and rationing period in the UK that show that despite shortages people got healthier, because they had to eat more basic diets and rely on things like homegrown veg and give up lots of normal sources of excess calories. And that was compared with the '30s!)2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.
Does Chex Mix have more sugar than Doritos or other crisps/chips? Curious
You can look it up. You have the same access to the internet that we do.
I would hazard a guess that the info is even available in the database here if you're interested.
Im not from the US so dont know what the other popular brands are. But the answer is yes..much more than Doritos..dont know other crisps os chips brands
if it has more sugar it simply means it has more calories...4 -
Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
What I would say is that people never actually followed the advice to reduce the fat in their diets. They may have bought and eaten more of some low fat goodies with that as a justification (just as some may drink a bottle of red wine because it's good for you, knowing that's just an excuse), but overall fat consumption increased, and did not decrease. (Carb consumption increased more, but I think that's because people started snacking more vs. eating regular meals.) Most significantly, what was advised in the '80s and '90s wasn't just reducing fat, but eating more vegetables and fruit, whole grain carbs, etc., and people did not do that at all. So the argument that people overeat because we eat too little fat is risible.
(Many places eat far less fat than the traditional diet in the US or UK, and yet don't have a weight issue. Our carb percentage hasn't changed that much and is well within the norm, and consistent with that in many blue zones. Our choices of both carbs AND fat (and protein, for that matter) are different, of course.)1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.
Does Chex Mix have more sugar than Doritos or other crisps/chips? Curious
You can look it up. You have the same access to the internet that we do.
I would hazard a guess that the info is even available in the database here if you're interested.
Im not from the US so dont know what the other popular brands are. But the answer is yes..much more than Doritos..dont know other crisps os chips brands
if it has more sugar it simply means it has more calories...
From sugar. It has less from fat. It's all a huge straw man combined with a red herring.
Editing to add that for 100 grams, the difference in plain Chex Mix and Doritos in sugar content? .9 grams. Not much more.
Moving on...6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
I would say that most people viewed "low fat" as a green light to eat more overall food. I think it had less to do with the sugar and more to do with the psychological effect a "health term" like "low fat" has on an individual...
Precisely this.
In reality, the calorie content in "low fat" foods is nearly the same as full fat foods. People would equate "low fat" to "not fattening" and assume they could eat as much as they wanted, consuming more calories than they would have if they had eaten a proper serving of the full fat food.
Companies still try to trick people into it today. Look at Chex Mix, for example. It touts on the bag that it has 60% less fat than potato chips, but an ounce of Chex Mix has just as many or more calories than an ounce of potato chips. Also, an ounce of Chex Mix looks much smaller than an ounce of potato chips, which would cause more people to underestimate a serving and consume a lot more than they should.
Does Chex Mix have more sugar than Doritos or other crisps/chips? Curious
You can look it up. You have the same access to the internet that we do.
I would hazard a guess that the info is even available in the database here if you're interested.
Im not from the US so dont know what the other popular brands are. But the answer is yes..much more than Doritos..dont know other crisps os chips brands
if it has more sugar it simply means it has more calories...
From sugar. It has less from fat. It's all a huge straw man combined with a red herring.
Editing to add that for 100 grams, the difference in plain Chex Mix and Doritos in sugar content? .9 grams. Not much more.
Moving on...
Exactly...0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
But still their answer is to change the guidelines. It can never be about personal accountability, always someone else's fault.4 -
goldthistime wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Sugar doesn't give you any lasting fullness for the calories.
It does for me. *shrug*
Same here. A cup of marshmallows (150 calories) fills me up better than 1/4 cup of pecans (200 calories). Not to mention looking at the amount of pecans for these calories makes me sad.
Wow. We have stunningly different experiences.
Many of us are the opposite of you. Fat doesn't have the slightest impact on my hunger. In fact, I largely became overweight on meats and cheese (I used to eat blocks of cheese, lol). So when I look to cut calories, fat tends to go first and I decrease added sugars.0 -
makingmark wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
But still their answer is to change the guidelines. It can never be about personal accountability, always someone else's fault.
I agree, and it's quite disturbing. But I suspect that is a whole new debate and conversation.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
I don't think the sugar in and of itself had anything significant to do with it other then added calories...2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Makes sense as an argument. So what would you say to the people that say it is due to sugar in the "low fat" foods that took off in the 90's? Also people would argue that US and UK are not the most obese, there are small islands and developing countrys that are most obese and this is not due to overindulgence?
Again..just asking the question and seeing opinions
People like to scapegoat. Admitting personal responsibility is not very pleasant (and doesn't sell as well). What makes me scratch my head is that such people assume when low fat guidelines were established everyone magically adhered to them. Look no further than today. Who, other than some of the health conscious crowd, actually follows the dietary guidelines? People did not get fat because they were all good obedient health conscious scouts. I assure you, in the 90s we ate plenty of fat. I know I did.
As for the islands, I believe you mean the Samoan islands among others? They eat a lot of energy rich foods. If you look at the Samoan diet, heavy use of coconut cream and other coconut products as well as fried foods, mutton fat..etc despite most of their intake coming from whole foods (although convenience foods are becoming more and more available and they are getting more and more sedentary). The caloric density of their cuisine makes it pretty easy to overeat even if you don't down pounds of food. This only proves that regardless of the type of food, sugar, fat, junk, clean, whatever, if you overeat you get fat. It's that simple.
This is what gets me. I don't know a single person who adheres to all the dietary guidelines. So saying that the guidelines caused the issue is a bit far fetched.
The argument that seems to be made a lot is that you are exactly right and people are not reading the guidelines and got fat from the sugar in products that were said to be low-fat. Fat was the original target and everyone believed that fat makes you fat - seemed so logical lol.
I see what people are saying about behavioural trends and that millions of people got lazy and over ate. I was wondering if anyone bought into the accusation that the "low fat craze" of the 90's and 2000's with its high sugar contributed to the high obesity rates?
The guidelines said to limit fats, but based on the data posted above, people didn't actually do that. Also as mentioned above, people didn't eat whole grains or more fruits and veggies. Instead, people bought the low-fat cookies and ate them ON TOP OF the other stuff they were already eating. People consumed more in general. It has nothing to do specifically with sugar.
Worth mentioning: the latest data has shown that even though sugar consumption is decreasing, obesity rates are still increasing.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions