Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

It's All Sugar's Fault

Options
13468912

Replies

  • fuzzylop72
    fuzzylop72 Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    Unless the doctor was talking about some meaningless metric like the physical volume of food we consume (ignoring energy density of that food), then i'm not sure 'we eat the same amount we always have' holds up to scrutiny.

    americans-are-consuming-far-more-calories-each-day-than-is-recommended-daily-intake-should-be-around-2000-calories-for-women-and-2500-for-men.jpg

  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    edited October 2017
    Options
    Look at the graph carefully, people. Between 1970 and 2010 (eyeballing the graph without having the original numbers) average daily calories consumed increased from approx 2100 to slightly over 2500. Even without a change in activity, 350 calories is about a tenth of a pound increase per day. That's why people have been getting fatter over the same period in the U.S. -- it has nothing to do with what people are eating (percent of calories coming from sugars doesn't change over the period), and everything to do with how much they're eating. This animation from the CDC illustrates obesity rates over the same period:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/04/obesity_in_america_cdc_releases_gif_of_epidemic_over_time.html

    The other thing the graph shows is that the increase in calorie intake is due to more added fats and flour/grains in the diet, not sugars, fruits, veggies, dairy, or meats.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    vingogly wrote: »
    Look at the graph carefully, people. Between 1970 and 2010 (eyeballing the graph without having the original numbers) average daily calories consumed increased from approx 2100 to slightly over 2500. Even without a change in activity, 350 calories is about a tenth of a pound increase per day. That's why people have been getting fatter over the same period in the U.S. -- it has nothing to do with what people are eating (percent of calories coming from sugars doesn't change over the period), and everything to do with how much they're eating. This animation from the CDC illustrates obesity rates over the same period:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/04/obesity_in_america_cdc_releases_gif_of_epidemic_over_time.html

    The other thing the graph shows is that the increase in calorie intake is due to more added fats and flour/grains in the diet, not sugars, fruits, veggies, dairy, or meats.

    If you throw in that besides an obvious increase in mechanized tasks resulting in decreased incidental daily movement, it's quite easy to see what the main cause of the obesity crisis is.



  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    edited October 2017
    Options
    hmm I got fat because I moved less and at the same amount of food(calories) I was eating before when I was really active(I took a medication for asthma that wound me up so I was always moving and it may have sped up my metabolism a little bit). but once off the mication d and once I stopped moving as much I started gaining weight.I went from 140 to 209 lbs. I was 140 for most of my life until that point.There were times I was less than that.The smallest I was as an adult was 125 lbs(still on the medication). so that shows you that moving less and eating more than you burn DOES lead to obesity and weight gain.
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    Options
    This is what my doctor told me today is the reason people are overweight/obese today. It's a very commonly used explanation on these boards so I wanted to open it up for discussion.

    He said that we (I assume he meant Americans, but I guess it could be expanded to Westerners in general) eat about the same number of calories our parents and grandparents used to, but now everything has sugar and unrefined carbohydrates in it. And that's why we're so fat now.

    The only sources he cited were a couple of documentaries I eventually got him to admit were the ones on Netflix.

    I think this is a load of hooey and had to try hard to keep a straight face and a closed mouth.

    But what do you think?

    If we're eating the same, our activity level is a lot lower as we drive everywhere, and use electrical or mechanical gadgets for every task.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    Serious question, Gale.

    You keep stating that you, in some fashion, have a "terminal degree in a medical field." What, exactly, is your degree? And in what field? What do/did you practice?
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Serious question, Gale.

    You keep stating that you, in some fashion, have a "terminal degree in a medical field." What, exactly, is your degree? And in what field? What do/did you practice?

    Optometry/opthomology (I can't remember exactly now, because it's be a while since it was discussed) and he never practiced due to his health conditions.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?

    Can I get an AMEN! :p