Adam Ruins Everything: Weight Loss

2»

Replies

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    aeloine wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    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.

    30 extra pounds is enough to beat up your body... you don't have to be very large.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    edited July 2017
    My husband was laughing at me, seeing how much the show was pissing me off.

    My 13-year-old was watching with me. He doesn't need to hear that it's basically impossible to lose weight. Ugh. He's watched his mom lose almost 30 pounds, it's obviously not impossible.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    gothchiq wrote: »
    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. ;)

    But that would reduce my calorie burn significantly. :disappointed:
  • Hypsibius
    Hypsibius Posts: 207 Member
    edited July 2017
    It's actually a good episode for the most part. Bit of an over-focus on sugar and some fatalism, but some good here too:

    The good:
    1. Destroys the idea that "low-fat" products are good for anything and that fat is "bad."
    2. Exposes how paid researchers and "scientists" can and have used bogus studies to support one lobby or industry or another.
    3. Exposes that addiction (psychological or otherwise) to sweets is a real thing, many many Americans consume way too much of it, and added sugar and HFCS are in way too many products making it hard to lose weight if you're not paying attention (but misses the point that ultimately it's being over TDEE that causing weight gain, not the sugar itself).
    4. Teaches that calorie counting is an imprecise science that involves trial and error and debunks the idea that all humans have the same TDEE, and explains how calories are measured. Also that calorie counts on labels aren't awesome.
    5. Teaches that fitness trackers and anything that counts "calories burned" is going to be imprecise (and probably overshoot results). This is true.
    6. Teaches that one of the best things you can do to see results is eat healthy, cut portions, and weight yourself regularly. This is true.
    7. Exposes the nastiness behind shows like "Biggest Loser." <-- these awful POS shows shouldn't exist, and the programs they put people on are cruel and unsustainable.

    The bad.
    1. By totally poo-pooing calorie/macro counting, the show ignores that this -- while imprecise -- is a trial and error process that can absolutely provide a consistent and helpful guide, helps a LOT of people lose weight, and that tracking and managing intake can create accountability and progress.
    2. Suggests that being "fat" could be something genetic or totally out of your control, and that massive changes "might not even be possible." This is bogus and totally uninspiring.
    3. Doesn't provide a very good way forward for people serious about losing weight. Would have preferred a little more helpful science... seems to encourage some apathy over action.

    I'd say overall I give it a solid "B-" when compared to all the junk science out there.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    TheViperMan wrote: »
    PatriNina wrote: »
    Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?

    Sure! First of all, our bodies are built to consume fat - it is indeed what allowed our species to survive evolution. Early humans enjoyed chewing on sugar cane, but survived on animal proteins and fats. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/history-sugar-food-nobody-needs-everyone-craves-004406)

    What I was surprised I DIDN'T see complaints on was the section regarding calories, and how basically every calorie "target" calculator/theory out there is bogus, because we have no idea exactly how many calories we burn. Nor do most companies know (or bother to find out) exactly how many calories their products contain, and since the FDA allows a 20% swing in accuracy (I was surprised to learn that) a lot of the numbers we work with here on this very site are skewed - substantially. (https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm)

    He didn't even get around to mentioning that the FDA has no system for auditing food labels, and that compliance with the law is expected to be monitored by the manufacturers... (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/08/21/when-nutrition-labels-lie)

    Toss in the fact that those fancy fitbits many of you use have shown to be 40% inaccurate (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27248/20150118/fitness-trackers-up-to-40-inaccurate-fitbit-jawbone-nike-others-tested-in-new-study-which-performed-best.htm) and Fitbit themselves explained that the device was never meant to be for scientific or medical use, and suddenly this whole "counting calories" thing is nearly impossible.

    So, those folks who've stated that this show was wrong, that it misrepresented facts, that it "ruined" the series in general, are denying themselves the reality of how complicated our physiology is and how difficult it can be to produce a method that works for everyone. They want to keep justifying what they're doing and what they're preaching to each other because change is hard.

    Did the show cover everything it could, of course not. Did it leave things out, absolutely. It's a half-hour, low-budget show that's only in it's second season. I like this season so far - he's trying to fit in more interviews with his sources (often professors/authors/doctors in their fields) to go into a bit more detail, but again, it's a short show with commercials - only so much you can cover in roughly 22 minutes of air-time.

    Humans developed that survival mechanism, well, for survival. It's slower and less efficient. The default the body switches to immediately is running on glucose as soon as it's available and for as long as it's available because it's quick and efficient. Humans lived and continue to live in diverse areas with diverse biomes and food availability. I can't believe how anyone would fall for generalizing the human diet to one particular pattern. We eat what's available, and what's available can span a wide range of macro percentages.

    Calories can be inaccurate in theory, and the same goes for activity trackers, but both can be practically accurate after you've pinpointed your numbers through simple logging. The way it was portrayed is completely misleading. No one ever said every person on the planet needs 2300 calories, and even if your point is that calculators are not accurate for individuals, it's easy to find your individual practical number. This is a moot point and a non-argument. The show (which I begrudgingly had to watch in its entirety to reply to this) made it look like if you don't know the exact numbers then it's no good and we're better off just giving up and accepting our weight.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    TheViperMan wrote: »
    PatriNina wrote: »
    Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?

    Sure! First of all, our bodies are built to consume fat - it is indeed what allowed our species to survive evolution. Early humans enjoyed chewing on sugar cane, but survived on animal proteins and fats. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/history-sugar-food-nobody-needs-everyone-craves-004406)

    What I was surprised I DIDN'T see complaints on was the section regarding calories, and how basically every calorie "target" calculator/theory out there is bogus, because we have no idea exactly how many calories we burn. Nor do most companies know (or bother to find out) exactly how many calories their products contain, and since the FDA allows a 20% swing in accuracy (I was surprised to learn that) a lot of the numbers we work with here on this very site are skewed - substantially. (https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm)

    He didn't even get around to mentioning that the FDA has no system for auditing food labels, and that compliance with the law is expected to be monitored by the manufacturers... (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/08/21/when-nutrition-labels-lie)

    Toss in the fact that those fancy fitbits many of you use have shown to be 40% inaccurate (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27248/20150118/fitness-trackers-up-to-40-inaccurate-fitbit-jawbone-nike-others-tested-in-new-study-which-performed-best.htm) and Fitbit themselves explained that the device was never meant to be for scientific or medical use, and suddenly this whole "counting calories" thing is nearly impossible.

    So, those folks who've stated that this show was wrong, that it misrepresented facts, that it "ruined" the series in general, are denying themselves the reality of how complicated our physiology is and how difficult it can be to produce a method that works for everyone. They want to keep justifying what they're doing and what they're preaching to each other because change is hard.

    Did the show cover everything it could, of course not. Did it leave things out, absolutely. It's a half-hour, low-budget show that's only in it's second season. I like this season so far - he's trying to fit in more interviews with his sources (often professors/authors/doctors in their fields) to go into a bit more detail, but again, it's a short show with commercials - only so much you can cover in roughly 22 minutes of air-time.

    I was able to start with less than perfect data from nutrition labeling and my fitbit, adjust based on my results, and come up with what must be an accurate representation of my calorie needs, as my weight does what I expect it to do, and I lost the 15 lbs I'd been struggling with. It wasn't really very difficult to figure out. But I suppose I just should have given up sugar and resigned myself to probably gaining a bit of weight as I got older instead.

    It's not that the information he presented was incorrect. It's that it was one-sided and the conclusions he drew were fatalistic. The last thing people need to be told by a myth-busting show is that there is no good data ready made for you to be spoon-fed anyway, so just try to eat healthier and stop worrying about your weight.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    So disappointing. Shot down some myths by supporting other myths. Shot down low fat, superiority of specific diets, and the Biggest Loser.

    But did so by pushing Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health. <facepalm>

    I honestly don't think I can watch this show anymore :cry:

    It was same when John Oliver did his episode on sugar. Lots of the same rhetoric as this show and episode.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    edited July 2017
    Every 20 years a macro is demonized... still waiting on the provocative, desperately needed Put Down the Fork era.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html

    pssssst
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    edited July 2017
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    So disappointing. Shot down some myths by supporting other myths. Shot down low fat, superiority of specific diets, and the Biggest Loser.

    But did so by pushing Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health. <facepalm>

    I honestly don't think I can watch this show anymore :cry:

    It was same when John Oliver did his episode on sugar. Lots of the same rhetoric as this show and episode.

    True, but I guess I see the shows differently. I know that John Oliver is taking a stance on what everyone is talking about and voicing his opinion, whereas I never saw ARE as an opinion show, which obviously I should have. I often disagree with what Oliver is saying and I'm fine with that. He did annoy me with the sugar is just like cocaine stuff, but I still laughed through the whole thing, especially "Cranberries taste like cherries that hate you" so I forgave him. :innocent: Plus the only conclusion he drew was to support the then suggested new FDA rule to call out "added sugar" on the label.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    mrsnattybulking wrote: »
    Every 20 years a macro is demonized... still waiting on the provocative, desperately needed Put Down the Fork era.

    But then it's my responsibility, not the evil government in bed with BigSugar conspiring against me to steal my tax dollars for health (or rather sick) care.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    Is this the whole show? 24 min.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptuiUskToQ

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    So disappointing. Shot down some myths by supporting other myths. Shot down low fat, superiority of specific diets, and the Biggest Loser.

    But did so by pushing Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health. <facepalm>

    I honestly don't think I can watch this show anymore :cry:

    It was same when John Oliver did his episode on sugar. Lots of the same rhetoric as this show and episode.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MepXBJjsNxs
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    folgers86 wrote: »
    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.

    Given that this show seems to be written to be accessible to below high school grade level, I thought they did a decent job explaining the sugar/fat conflict of the last few decades.

    I've just finished the sugar section, so have no opinion on the overall message of the show.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories