Adam Ruins Everything: Weight Loss

PaulaWallaDingDong
PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
edited November 20 in Health and Weight Loss
So far, I'm disappointed. Sigh...
«1

Replies

  • Momepro
    Momepro Posts: 1,509 Member
    Is that a new one?
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    edited July 2017
    Yes it's new. I'm missing a lot of it because I'm on the job, but they lost me at someone using a razor blade to cut lines of sugar. They went on to slam Biggest Loser a bit (missed the specifics, though), but I'm hurting. :cry:
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    edited July 2017
    :huh:

    Is this a pop culture reference? I'm terribad at that stuff, but I like to be the first one to post, so...

    It's a show where Adam messes up everyone's good time by correcting popular myths and whatnot.

    And the "doing lines of sugar" wasn't a hyberbole about the evils of sugar being a joke. It was in support of the notion that it's like cocaine.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    Yep, I give up. Not really.
  • PatriNina
    PatriNina Posts: 154 Member
    Just watched it... disappointed is just putting it lightly.
    So much denial and HAES- inspired misinformation.
    I'm 256 lbs, down from 304 lbs, in 125 days.
    Not having laboratory grade accuracy with calories didn't stop the CICO strategy from being efficient.

    Too bad this makes me question his other theories. Not going to enjoy the show as much ever again.

  • PatriNina
    PatriNina Posts: 154 Member
    Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    aeloine wrote: »
    ^^ It *could* be, if taken in the right light.

    Big Sugar IS a thing, utilizing tactics similar to Big Tobacco for marketing, branding, and product composition;

    Genetics CAN make it more difficult to lose weight or easier to gain, especially if you have specific genetic disorders, but are not a "destiny";

    Some people are fine being "overweight" because BMI is meant for a collective rather than the individual, and some people are "overweight" due to higher muscle mass;

    Weight is not directly related to health in that being overweight is a symptom of your habits, lifestyle, nutrition, and genetics. It's the things that come with being overweight (higher cholesterol, poor blood circulation, insulin resistance, etc.) that have the DIRECT impact on your health. Causation vs. correlation. This is up to a point, of course. If you're overweight enough that you can't get out of bed... well, that's a whole 'nother beast.

    BUT this is not how most people who watch that channel are going to interpret the things that he's saying.

    Also: have not watched the episode.

    False. Big corn might be a thing, big sugar isn't.

    Very few... and as one of them, I recognize that it works pretty well for most people.

    The extra pounding on your knees, hips and ankles, unless you're working on building the necessary strength skills and supporting muscles will take a toll
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    aeloine wrote: »
    ^^ It *could* be, if taken in the right light.

    Big Sugar IS a thing, utilizing tactics similar to Big Tobacco for marketing, branding, and product composition

    Most of the sugar in ultra processed/hyper marketed foods is probably HFCS (i.e., Big Corn), not "Big Sugar."

    The reason HFCS is added in large amounts to some products is that it's cheap and has a consistency (liquid) that makes it easy to do so, apparently. And, most significantly, it's a cheap way to make food taste good to the average consumer. People don't consume sweet foods because they are convinced it's "cool" to do so or healthy for them (as with tobacco at various times), but because they enjoy them. Most of the consumption is in products that are called "junk food" and known to be bad for us in excess (sweet dessert foods or soda).

    Before the rise of cheap mass marketed sweets, people still loved and craved sweet foods -- apple pie, Sacher torte, Christmas pudding, all sorts of examples going back forever. The difference is they are cheap and easily available now. If one is not a snob (I'm a bit of a snob, admittedly), you can go to the store and buy for little the same thing you used to have to devote time to making (or paying much more for at a bakery, if you lived somewhere that was an option).

    Anyway, main point is that we don't eat foods that are bad for us because of Big Sugar. Big Snack Food (sugary and not) saw an opportunity and seized it. Many humans will easily overeat in a situation where they are surrounded by foods they perceive as tasty and little or no cultural restrictions (eating times or cultural norms) that prevent it.
  • tabletop_joe
    tabletop_joe Posts: 455 Member
    I loved the episode, big thumbs up.
  • folgers86
    folgers86 Posts: 84 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    aeloine wrote: »
    ^^ It *could* be, if taken in the right light.

    Big Sugar IS a thing, utilizing tactics similar to Big Tobacco for marketing, branding, and product composition


    Anyway, main point is that we don't eat foods that are bad for us because of Big Sugar. Big Snack Food (sugary and not) saw an opportunity and seized it. Many humans will easily overeat in a situation where they are surrounded by foods they perceive as tasty and little or no cultural restrictions (eating times or cultural norms) that prevent it.

    There once was a heated argument between Fat vs. Sugar in the diet and which was more detrimental. Fat lost and Sugar won (mostly by appealing to consumers) - manufacturers had to add sugar to help make up for he lack of flavor due to low fat. We now know that certain fats, like saturated fats, aren't particularly good for you but there are healthy fats as well. We also know that a diet high in sugar is strongly linked to insulin resistance and type II diabetes. So at one point in time you probably could argue for the presence of Big Sugar, but whether it truly exists today...we probably won't find out for years to come.

    Conspiracy theories aside I thought it was a pretty good episode. Unfortunately I think they oversimplified their explanations a bit which is leading to some debate. For instance, aeloine's point about obesity vs health and correlation and causation is absolutely correct. The writers could have explained that better. Obesity in and of itself is not the source of health problems. That's like saying the increase in murder rates during the summer drives the sale of ice cream higher in the summer. Lifestyle and diet cause both obesity and other health problems. You can lose fat by eating a bag of Twix every day, but you sure won't help reverse any insulin resistance by doing that.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Isn't that how you make icing sugar from your regular table sugar? Cutting with a razorblade. On a shiny surface, of course.

    Nah, that's inefficient. Throw sugar in coffee grinder. ;)
  • aeloine
    aeloine Posts: 2,163 Member
    edited July 2017
    extra pounding on your knees, hips and ankles, unless you're working on building the necessary strength skills and supporting muscles will take a toll

    Which is why I mentioned being very large. If you're large enough to be getting a beating out of your own body, that's a whole 'nother level of issues.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    Here's a sample from the show. Enjoy the "heart disease was rare before sugar brought it about" and "sugar is more addictive than cocaine". This ruined the show for me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rWjb7t8cfo

    when you can't afford cocaine, sugar is the next best thing!
This discussion has been closed.