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
Replies
-
I think there are several factors... sugar yes, but mostly because there's a lot more of it in things now because when they pulled all the fat out of foods in the 80's they replaced it all with sugar
People repeat this all the time, but I don't think it's true.
Low fat isn't a current trend, and most "low fat" things tend to either have nothing added (low fat dairy, low fat ground beef, skinless, boneless chicken breasts) or are "diet" products that also use fake sugar. For example, Halo Top has less fat than normal ice cream, but also artificial sweetener. Yogurts sold as low cal use fake sugar. Yes, some flavored yogurts have sugar added, but that has nothing to do with being fat fat or not, full fat Noosa or Fage have flavored versions too. Chocolate milk (added sugar) has all the fat.
There are more and probably better tasting (to those into them) snack foods available now, but as I said above they tend to be high in fat as well as carbs (sometimes sugar, sometimes not).
I guess fat free cookies are still a thing among some, but they are hardly something the grocery store is bursting with. I don't think the average food with lots of sugar has more than it otherwise would due to the fat free thing anymore. (Palates might be on average sweeter now, although that missed me, and I recall sugary cereals being awfully darn sugary back when I was a kid -- I hated cereal and didn't like the sweetness, I thought it was weird -- as well as there being a ton of super sugary snack products (Honey Buns, anyone? or pixie stix?).)2 -
I'm pretty over this discussion, so I'm just going to say, low carb, high protein, reasonable fat is working great for me. YMMV. You all do you. I'll stick with what works for me.
"What's working for you" is fine and dandy as far as it goes, until like most people you wake up one day and realize that you were fooling yourself to believe you could eat Keto for life. And yet you still cling to the lie that this was the reason for your weight loss all along. Believing the lie will become a significant crutch to you at that point, and it's a situation I regrettably have personal experience with.5 -
I'm pretty over this discussion, so I'm just going to say, low carb, high protein, reasonable fat is working great for me. YMMV. You all do you. I'll stick with what works for me.
Can you answer the question about how you tracked your calories while you calorie counted and had no results?
You came to a debate forum and made some assertions.
Furthermore, I'm glad you've found something that's working for you, but don't you want to understand WHY it's working?
Low carbing worked for me up to a point because I wasn't counting calories. I only got down to a certain weight and then the scale stopped moving. Calorie counting wasn't stressed, just how evil carbs and sugar were. I was counting carbs, I thought I was doing everything right.
Eventually, a stressful situation happened, and I did what I always did, I stress ate. This situation was ongoing, and weight piled on while I was still counting carbs.
It's not magic.
Calories still count. Learn to count them accurately this time. And learn that's why you're losing weight. You're eating fewer calories than you were when you thought you were accurately counting before.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.I upped my carb intake for weight loss by going high fiber.
Yeah, fiber isn't actually used by your body and doesn't really count as a carb, it just fills you up and then leaves your body. You feel full longer so you eat less. Without realizing it, you were lowering your net carb intake.
I don't know what you mean by "doesn't count as a carb". Fibers are carbohydrates whether you count them or not.
But no, my net carb intake stayed about the same. I've never been one to eat a lot of sweets because I like to use my "pleasure calories" for wine or beer. My total carbs increased and I lowered my fat intake. Fat is the thing I find easiest to overeat.
Like Need2, I also find fat the easiest to overeat.
When I decided to fix my diet to avoid excess calories (initially without counting), I did two things. First, I cut back on added fat and cheese. Second, I paid more attention to serving sizes more generally and specifically cut back on portions of starchy carbs (although also some kinds of higher cal meat). The first is because that's where I tend to overeat, and the second is because my eye fools me sometimes and I will eat something because it is on my plate, and because I don't really care about starchy carbs so am easily satisfied with less.
I ate more of some kinds of carbs (legumes, fruit, root vegetables, dairy) than before.
I also cut out snacking since it is something I can do mindlessly, but that is more focused on what I like and is available vs. sweet or carbs (it could as easily be good cheese or nuts or dried apricots).2 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »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?
Did you know to become a doctor you typically have to only take an introductory nutrition course?! Not your area sir!!!! Wow that is so sad and funny all at the same time!!3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I think there are several factors... sugar yes, but mostly because there's a lot more of it in things now because when they pulled all the fat out of foods in the 80's they replaced it all with sugar.
Also though because people are relying more on chemical laden processed food instead of cooking at home the way we used to, also portion sizes have tripled.
And people used to get more exercise.
See my post above, can you provide some examples of foods which you feel are high in sugar as a result of the low fat focus in prior decades? While I think this was a situation with some foods (Snackwells comes to mind), I don't think this is actually prevalent in foods today - would be interested in some examples where you feel sugar content is high relative to the content of other ingredients.
Also interested what "chemical laden processed foods" you think are contributing to the obesity epidemic and what specific chemicals you find concerning? As I mentioned above, I eat a decent amount of processed/convenience foods including frozen meals, skillet dinners, etc that I use as part of my busy lifestyle. It hasn't prevented me from losing weight, in fact, I find frozen meals and a skillet dinner with the addition of extra protein and some frozen vegetables to be an easy way to control calories.
Portion sizes - perhaps. If a person is monitoring their intake, this is fairly easy to control when preparing food for oneself. Even when eating out - it's not necessary to "super size" fast food meals, at a sit down restaurant a person can take leftovers home for another meal. It still comes down to personal accountability.
I agree that we are more sedentary than we used to be. I also agree with others that suggest this is one of the biggest contributing factors to the obesity epidemic.
+10 -
The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.I upped my carb intake for weight loss by going high fiber.
Yeah, fiber isn't actually used by your body and doesn't really count as a carb, it just fills you up and then leaves your body. You feel full longer so you eat less. Without realizing it, you were lowering your net carb intake.
Here is my dinner for today. Lots of vegetables. Even my dessert was a vegetable today. Carb count sans honey: 56, of which only 1/4 is fiber. I have consumed the equivalent of more than a can of soda of vegetable carbs, not counting the fiber. Vegetables aren't 100% fiber.
3 -
I'm pretty over this discussion, so I'm just going to say, low carb, high protein, reasonable fat is working great for me. YMMV. You all do you. I'll stick with what works for me.
You posted in a Debate thread titled "It's All Sugar's Fault" that already has 6 pages of detailed arguments, and came in with what sounded like a pretty universal message - that added sugars are to blame. People are "debating" with you. Did you read the rest of the thread? Do you have anything to add to the many posts before yours that seem to refute your point?4 -
russelljam08 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »No need for digestible round here, we're good at readin' and a learnin' here. Anyway, the PM you sent me was different:
"I decided to message you directly as your question was open and allowed for opinion sharing, unlike some of the other comments.
The point I was trying to make is that our 'wiring' (genetics and expression of those genetics) can be dramatically disrupted by hyper-palatable foods and the over-abundance of carbohydrates that typically exists in our diets. This is already known by the food industry, sports drink industry, etc. and is relied upon for those huge profits. You'll rarely see a giant promotion around 'lettuce' or 'apples', because there's no money in it. Ultimately, real food can do wonders. I don't consider 'whole grains' real food, as it has so many problems associated with it. (If you remember, whole grains was the solution promoted to solve the 'saturated fat' problem, which it turns out is not a problem at all - but just bad science.)
Ultimately the foundation of how our human biology has evolved in the 1.5M years of us getting here - the ~8,000 yrs or so (a drop in the bucket of the overall timeline) since we've introduced grains (which becomes refined carbohydrates, in addition to sugar, etc.) in our diet goes against the fundamentals of optimal energy maintenance in the body. That time equates to less than 1% of our time on Earth, so it's not surprising our body doesn't process this stuff very well, as it also disrupts important hormonal regulation of various aspect of our health.
The human body wants to be able to store AND burn body fat (think of the options available to our ancestors and how they would have survived) and our modern diet directly interferes with efficient use of our own metabolism (we become carb-dependent instead of being able to burn our body fat) and develop metabolic-related diseases (diabetes, cancer, heart-disease, etc.) as a result.
When the human body is rid of the nastiness of the modern 'SAD' diet, it can be brought back into a normal operating balance; which can also help reverse the course of the diseases mentioned above.
I people are slowly coming to grips with the abundance of evidence shown by Primal/Paleo/Keto in allowing the body to recover and normalize back to the way we are 'wired'. It's not a 'diet', it's how we are designed (evolved) to process energy and nutrition based on our relationship with the Earth and the things on it.
I hope that answers your question without sounding 'too preachy'."
The body does indeed want to store and use body fat for energy and that is indeed what it does. The body cycles through various energy sources all the time. The entire cheesecake I ate to myself last week doesn't change that. Nor does the mound of rice I had with my curry yesterday.
Grains and sugar aren't killing us, over-eating and various lifestyle factors are (pollution, stress, living longer, less active).
And by the way, we have an anthropologist round these parts, paging @Nony_Mouse, who can thoroughly debunk the whole paleo/primal is how our ancestors ate nonsense. Though she often gets pretty fed up of repeating herself.
Aw man, do I have to? You know these people don't listen to reason! Okay, just quickly:
1) 8000 years since we introduced grains into our diet? LOL, try over 100,000 - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm. Not good enough? How about oldest evidence for flour manufacture (ermahgad, processed!!!) - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101018/full/news.2010.549.html. No? Here's earliest evidence of deliberate cultivation, as opposed to harvesting of wild grains: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm
2) our bodies don't process this stuff that we've been eating for millennia well? How, pray tell, were those of Northern European descent able to adapt to dairy consumption in a much shorter space of time?
3) the modern paleo/primal diet bears no resemblance whatsoever to the way that Palaeolithic people ate, which was basically anything that you could ingest that didn't kill you, whilst avoiding anything that might kill you if it got the chance. The Palaeolithic era covers a huge time span (~2.6 million years), and vastly different geographical zones, with lots and lots of different food choices. Luckily, we adapt to different/new to us foods really well, all part and parcel of being an omnivore. What we haven't adapted to is an over-abundance of hyper palatable foods. It's not the foods themselves that are the problem, it's our over-eating of those foods coupled with our no longer really required (in the Western world) ability to store fat for times of shortage and an in-built bodyweight regulation system that fights fat loss.
4) the human body's ability to switch to running on body fat was a damn handy adaptation when food shortage was a far more common thing for the entire population. Those people were also eating below their caloric needs at those times, obviously. You know what happens when you eat below your caloric needs, even for a few days? Leptin falls (really fast initially, actually), and then drags other hormones along for the joy ride, in order to preserve life for the longest time possible, cos who knows when enough food is going to be available again. When leptin etc fall, your metabolism slows down (adaptive thermogenesis). You know what brings leptin back up again once food is available? Carbohydrates. Not fats. Carbs. Why is that important? Because it corrects all those nasty hormonal responses to starvation.
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-1.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-2.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-3.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-4.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-6.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-the-last.html/
Game. Set. Match.
Funny, how the so-called "cognitive" benefits from the starving keto brains can't seem to muster the brain power to refute science and instead rely on placebo effects and anecdotes!
This seems (snidely) aimed at me so I'll respond.
I suppose one could pursue ketosis by eating bugs, rotten meat left over from another's kill, or raw fish (bones, brains and all) while living in a lean-to or cave. But that would be an odd choice. Its not mine
In the recent past I have described my diet as LCHF/ketogenic that loosely follows a Primal diet... based loosely on the book. I also describe my diet as a loose Atkins phase 1-2. They are somewhat similar.
I never claimed we should eat the same diet, or live in the same circumstances as paleolithic man. I believe I said overeating is the problem behind weight gain, and for me that is triggered by sugars and highly refined carbs. Then I posted again to correct misinformation about ketosis: that the brain is "starving" without glucose even if it runs just as well, if not better in some people, when ketones are its primary fuel.
For me this is true. I noticed quite a difference and (disturbingly) my loved ones did too. But now there is a personal attack on my brain power because I did not respond to a discussion in this thread that I was not participating in?
BTW, you never responded to my reply to you.
Ketosis allows for metabolic flexibility. It is there and can be used. I have a northern European background, chances are that my ancestors experienced ketosis in the fall and winter when meat was more plentiful and fatter, and ate more plant matter in the summer and fall. People today can do it too. Ketosis some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time is safe.
It is not unnatural. It is not harmful. It does not starve the brain.
Conversely, cutting back on sugar and highly refined grains is not unnatural, harmful or starve the brain either. For most people, it won't hurt their health and in many it could help it. For weight loss, some find it easier to lose weight while cutting sugar and highly refined carbs, while others don't.
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think there are several factors... sugar yes, but mostly because there's a lot more of it in things now because when they pulled all the fat out of foods in the 80's they replaced it all with sugar
People repeat this all the time, but I don't think it's true.
Low fat isn't a current trend, and most "low fat" things tend to either have nothing added (low fat dairy, low fat ground beef, skinless, boneless chicken breasts) or are "diet" products that also use fake sugar. For example, Halo Top has less fat than normal ice cream, but also artificial sweetener. Yogurts sold as low cal use fake sugar. Yes, some flavored yogurts have sugar added, but that has nothing to do with being fat fat or not, full fat Noosa or Fage have flavored versions too. Chocolate milk (added sugar) has all the fat.
There are more and probably better tasting (to those into them) snack foods available now, but as I said above they tend to be high in fat as well as carbs (sometimes sugar, sometimes not).
I guess fat free cookies are still a thing among some, but they are hardly something the grocery store is bursting with. I don't think the average food with lots of sugar has more than it otherwise would due to the fat free thing anymore. (Palates might be on average sweeter now, although that missed me, and I recall sugary cereals being awfully darn sugary back when I was a kid -- I hated cereal and didn't like the sweetness, I thought it was weird -- as well as there being a ton of super sugary snack products (Honey Buns, anyone? or pixie stix?).)
This is a footnote, but I do think some/many foods have gotten sweeter since my childhood (1950s-60s).
I believe that across many food categories, but this is the memory that seals it for me:
When I was a child there was a whole category of rather horrifying molded "salads" that contained veggies, meats, fish and sometimes dairy (sour cream, cream cheese or cottage cheese, typically). They were made with gelatin, sometimes unflavored, but sometimes commercial lemon or lime jello. Dubious pseudo-aspic, basically.
A few years back, I read something about a modern 1950s buff trying out these old recipes, who remarked on how awful the profound sweetness of the lime jello was with the other ingredients (I think it may've been some tuna/black olive/celery sort of thing, though I don't recall specifically).
I ate those so-called salads as a young person. Believe me, they were unpleasant enough to me at the time that I have a pretty clear memory. The problem was not that they were too sweet. They were slightly sweet, slightly citrus, and totally revolting. Modern Jello is, IMO, very different from 1960s jello.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think there are several factors... sugar yes, but mostly because there's a lot more of it in things now because when they pulled all the fat out of foods in the 80's they replaced it all with sugar
People repeat this all the time, but I don't think it's true.
Low fat isn't a current trend, and most "low fat" things tend to either have nothing added (low fat dairy, low fat ground beef, skinless, boneless chicken breasts) or are "diet" products that also use fake sugar. For example, Halo Top has less fat than normal ice cream, but also artificial sweetener. Yogurts sold as low cal use fake sugar. Yes, some flavored yogurts have sugar added, but that has nothing to do with being fat fat or not, full fat Noosa or Fage have flavored versions too. Chocolate milk (added sugar) has all the fat.
There are more and probably better tasting (to those into them) snack foods available now, but as I said above they tend to be high in fat as well as carbs (sometimes sugar, sometimes not).
I guess fat free cookies are still a thing among some, but they are hardly something the grocery store is bursting with. I don't think the average food with lots of sugar has more than it otherwise would due to the fat free thing anymore. (Palates might be on average sweeter now, although that missed me, and I recall sugary cereals being awfully darn sugary back when I was a kid -- I hated cereal and didn't like the sweetness, I thought it was weird -- as well as there being a ton of super sugary snack products (Honey Buns, anyone? or pixie stix?).)
This is a footnote, but I do think some/many foods have gotten sweeter since my childhood (1950s-60s).
I believe that across many food categories, but this is the memory that seals it for me:
When I was a child there was a whole category of rather horrifying molded "salads" that contained veggies, meats, fish and sometimes dairy (sour cream, cream cheese or cottage cheese, typically). They were made with gelatin, sometimes unflavored, but sometimes commercial lemon or lime jello. Dubious pseudo-aspic, basically.
A few years back, I read something about a modern 1950s buff trying out these old recipes, who remarked on how awful the profound sweetness of the lime jello was with the other ingredients (I think it may've been some tuna/black olive/celery sort of thing, though I don't recall specifically).
I ate those so-called salads as a young person. Believe me, they were unpleasant enough to me at the time that I have a pretty clear memory. The problem was not that they were too sweet. They were slightly sweet, slightly citrus, and totally revolting. Modern Jello is, IMO, very different from 1960s jello.
Interesting. I also notice this about a lot of foods from my youth but I've always attributed it to changes in my tastes.0 -
If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.3
-
DELETED DO NOT QUESTION THE ALMIGHTY FOOD COMPANIES. GMO IS LOVE, GMO IS LIFE.17
-
I haven't noticed that about jello, but I don't think I've had jello since I was a kid, and even then ('70s and '80s) I recall it mostly being used in sweet applications (although not being super sweet, but mixed with fruit and cream cheese it wouldn't stick out as in a savory application). Maybe it changed before then, or maybe I just missed the era of the truly awful jello salad.
I don't have much overlap with the foods I ate that were sweet as a kid (see, e,g, pixie stix), beyond classic things like pie and cookies, and my recipes for those don't involve more sugar than my mother's or grandmother's did. I do think my own tastes have changed somewhat in a variety of ways.
Oddly enough, my sister -- who ate a ton more super sweet stuff when I was a kid than I did (I was more into savory even as a child) -- had her taste change a lot more, and basically doesn't have a sweet tooth at all anymore. (On the other hand, we both hated spicy as little kids, and I now love it (that started to change by my teens), whereas she's still quite skeptical.)2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »"Sugar" "carbs" "fat".... they are all simplistic. So is eat less, move more, even though that is what needs to be done as a bottom line solution to the problem.
If there's one thing I've learned through years of talking to people about dieting and fitness, it't that you can find 10 people who are overweight, and every single one of them will have different issues and need unique approaches to forming the habits needed to eat less and move more. Each of them will have to find a unique path to a sustainable approach to eating and physical activity.
This is why you simply cannot say that it's sugar, or carbs, or fat and that what worked for you (in a specific sense) will work for Harold over in accounting. Because Harold has his own preferences and triggers, and they aren't yours.
+1 to this
I agree - everyone is different, and everyone will respond differently to various methods of weight loss - but all the methods boil down the the same thing: fewer calories in, more calories out. It comes down to finding the method that you respond to best, whether it be low carb, high carb, weight watchers, jenny craig, weighing your food, counting calories, etc.
For me personally, I can maintain this new lifestyle much easier by limiting the sweet stuff (not cutting it out entirely, but being mindful of how much I'm eating) not because I think sugar is evil, but because I find that sugary sweets don't satiate me well and because I easily over eat without realizing it. And because its way fewer calories to snack on a Babyel or a pepperoni stick when I need something small to tide me over until dinner than it is to reach for that Little Debbie snack. I can get a large unsweet McDonald's tea and nurse it all morning. But if I get a large McDonald's sweet tea (half cut because I can't stand drinking sugar syrup lol), I'll have it drunk in 20 minutes without even realizing it and craving more. On the flip side, having some potatoes or pasta or other carb along with my dinner goes a long way in keeping me from reaching for whatever food is in sight as a snack later in the evening. A slice of bread will hold me way longer than an apple!
For me, the easiest way for me to lose weight is to calorie count with the freedom to eat what I want while staying within my calorie budget, not stressing about what I'm eating or what type of food I'm eating. I try to eat healthier foods, leaner meats, more fish and less beef, more vegetables and the like, but if I have a craving for chips or cookies or even McDonald's french fries, I have them - I'm just learning to eat smaller portions, aiming for a kiddie french fry or something like that. And for me, this method has worked - I've lost 90 lbs so far and 8 inches from my waist. I've kept it up for 10 months. This is the method that is best sustainable for me and has provided the best results - but this is what works for me and may not be the method that someone else needs.
I'm all on board with those who hold that it's less exercise versus how much we in modern society are eating that is leading the obesity epidemic, not so much what is being eaten. I see this in my own family. My parents were raised on farms - my mother didn't even have indoor plumbing until she was in high school. They routinely ate what was on the farm, from fresh whole milk, eggs, homemade butter, biscuits from white flour, etc. My mom cooks like a farmer's wife and taught me to cook like a farmer's wife. And I've found that the problem isn't what we're cooking - it's how much we're eating. My mother's breakfasts routinely will hit 1200 calories in one meal per person, which I found out when I started counting up the calories. Back when we were younger and working hard physically it didn't matter so much, but when I left home and went to college then got a desk job, my weight went up fast.
My dad was a carpenter and worked hard all day outside as a residential contractor. When he wasn't building something, then he was digging ditches, clearing land, and working hard physically. We cut fire wood in the fall and winter to supplement the family income - and they didn't get a wood splitter until I was 12, so my mother was splitting the equivalent of dozens of 1/2 ton pickup loads of wood a year by hand. My dad's weight remained steady until he broke his back about 7 years ago, which led to 2 hip replacements. His activity levels were severely curtailed but the amount he was eating didn't change and his weight ballooned up. This summer, he and my mom are working hard at helping me remodel a house I got from my grandfather. Dad spent the summer cleaning up the yard and gutting the house. He didn't change his amount of eating, nor did any of his medications change, but he has lost 20 lbs.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.0 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »
For me, the easiest way for me to lose weight is to calorie count with the freedom to eat what I want while staying within my calorie budget, not stressing about what I'm eating or what type of food I'm eating. I try to eat healthier foods, leaner meats, more fish and less beef, more vegetables and the like, but if I have a craving for chips or cookies or even McDonald's french fries, I have them - I'm just learning to eat smaller portions, aiming for a kiddie french fry or something like that. And for me, this method has worked - I've lost 90 lbs so far and 8 inches from my waist. I've kept it up for 10 months. This is the method that is best sustainable for me and has provided the best results - but this is what works for me and may not be the method that someone else needs.
Yeah, I think the whole "cut carbs/cut sugar/cut whatever" frequently doesn't work for people because then they just eat too many calories of something else.
On the other hand, it seems to me like approaching it from a "count and limit your calories" standpoint frequently leads to a lower sugar intake regardless, because people who are counting their calories quickly discover that they can't eat that many high-sugar food items in a day without quickly running into their calorie limit.
Like, if you've started logging your calories and you go to eat a Cinnabon and discover it has 880 calories, most people are going to think, "Oh I better not eat that, or else I'll find myself unable to eat a full dinner without going over my calorie budget." And then all of a sudden they're eating less sugar.
3 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »DELETED DO NOT QUESTION THE ALMIGHTY FOOD COMPANIES. GMO IS LOVE, GMO IS LIFE.
What does this thread have to do with GMO? Did you mean to post in another thread?2 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »A better test is to live like they did before the 50s. Walk to work, walk home, walk to the grocery a few times a week because you have no refrigeration.
This. I think people underestimate the impact of the rebuilding of American cities (and American culture) around the idea that you're going to drive everywhere.
I said I was going to walk to the store the other day and my wife looked at me like I had two heads because I needed to buy milk and cat food. And I was like, yes, I AM going to walk there and then walk back carrying 30 pounds in each hand.
Luckily I live in an older part of town where walking to the store is even possible. In the suburban sprawl parts of town, "walking down to the corner store for some milk" is much harder because there are no corner stores - just a supermarket that's 4 miles away, so walking there and back will take you 2 hours.
Based on my experience (born 1955), I don't think the timing is right for walking to be a major explanation of the "obesity crisis", though I grant that walking for errands gets treated as pretty eccentric now.
Most sources seem to say the obesity crisis really got rolling strongly in the 1970s-80s, though some date it back to 1960s. Car culture was already in full swing in the 1960s. The ubiquity of driving everywhere (in driving-age folks) started, I believe, as part of the post-WWII economic boom, at least in the US.
By the 1950s-60s, driving was not only standard transportation, but a very common leisure activity. The whole family (not just mine: many) would go for a drive on the weekend just for fun and togetherness. Drive-in movies were everywhere, and a popular dining experience was the kind of drive-in where you parked your car, someone (usually a teenage girl ) took your order and brought the food on a special tray that propped in your open window. (No cup holders in the car, BTW ). Teens were "going parking" surreptitiously on dates as a romantic interlude, and there were well-known secret spots for this in every town. Teens would also hang out at the aforementioned drive-ins, which were often located on some circuit that the cool teens with cars were driving for hours on some particular night(s) in lots of communities, their cars full of friends. Pop music included lots of hot-rodding and other car songs.
No one was walking, unless they had to. Low status activity among adults (can't afford a car?), and uncool among teens (find a friend with a car!). There were "gas wars" where stations competed gas prices down to 17-18 cents a gallon, and premiums (drink glasses, dishes, towels) were sometimes free with a fill-up.
This pretty much wound down in the oil crisis in the 1970s, and hasn't been back in the same way since, anywhere I've lived.
This next is n=1, specific to a person/place, but fairly symptomatic of commoner attitudes, I think. Sometime in the 1970s, around age 60, my dad started walking into town (rural area), about 5 miles, when he got a haircut. He'd made that walk most days during high school (1930s) and wanted to see if he still could. To a person, everyone who heard about this thought he. Was. Out. Of. His. Mind. As his teenaged kid, I was vaguely embarrassed. No one did this.
So, that's some wordy nostalgia.
I think the timing of the obesity crisis correlates more with increasing automation of jobs; shift toward fewer physical jobs and leisure activities; rise of screen time as a leisure obsession, including the move from a handful of TV channels locally to ubiquitous cable with hundreds of channels, as well as video/computer games, and internet use in general.
A shift from walking to driving would account for more calories, perhaps, but I think the timing's off by 20 years or so.
Food culture is also quite different, but that's a whole other nostalgia riff. Suffice to say, in this context, that the rise of Demon Sugar is at most one of many, many factors, IMO.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yep.0 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »
For me, the easiest way for me to lose weight is to calorie count with the freedom to eat what I want while staying within my calorie budget, not stressing about what I'm eating or what type of food I'm eating. I try to eat healthier foods, leaner meats, more fish and less beef, more vegetables and the like, but if I have a craving for chips or cookies or even McDonald's french fries, I have them - I'm just learning to eat smaller portions, aiming for a kiddie french fry or something like that. And for me, this method has worked - I've lost 90 lbs so far and 8 inches from my waist. I've kept it up for 10 months. This is the method that is best sustainable for me and has provided the best results - but this is what works for me and may not be the method that someone else needs.
Yeah, I think the whole "cut carbs/cut sugar/cut whatever" frequently doesn't work for people because then they just eat too many calories of something else.
On the other hand, it seems to me like approaching it from a "count and limit your calories" standpoint frequently leads to a lower sugar intake regardless, because people who are counting their calories quickly discover that they can't eat that many high-sugar food items in a day without quickly running into their calorie limit.
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
I tried googling but couldn't find anything about an increase in sugar. I did read a couple of interesting articles about the history of Jell-O though.
Jell-O is a fascinating food (at least to me). I recently read "Perfection Salad," a book about the history of American women in food-related professions, and it had some information about the history of Jell-O salads and how they were seen as "cleaner" than just eating the same foods not suspended in gelatin.
Interesting!
I'd add that the icky savory gelatin salads of my childhood were definitely seen as a bit fancy, in a "ladies who lunch" sort of way, in certain aspirational working-class to middle-class social circles at that time.0 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If the jello tastes more sweet, I think it's likely due to a decrease in the acid used for tartness rather than an increase in the amount of sugar contained in it.
That's certainly possible. As you'd guess, it's been a while since I've knowingly eaten any Jello, so I haven't recently taste-tested.
(For others' information: I'm vegetarian, Jello isn't. I think GottaBurnEmAll knows this from prior forum chats.
). 0 -
wordy nostalgia
Fair enough regarding the timing being off (I'm 29 so I was not there to observe social attitudes about it at the time). My post was mostly a complaint regarding the fact that modern American cities are designed in such a way that seems to actively discourage walking. On this website we all know that non-"exercise" energy expenditure is a big part of CI/CO, and walking for short errands is one of the ways that many Americans could increase their total energy expenditure. However, the design of modern American suburbs makes that very difficult, and I personally find that really frustrating.
2 -
Well, my old doctors used to tell me, routinely, to stop eating so much. I would go to the doctor for an illness or issue, and being overweight, they'd tell me to cut my intake down, eat more fiber, etc.
What they didn't ask was what I was eating regularly... and the very few times we did talk about it, they clearly didn't believe me. I would honestly tell them I ate 1 meal a day, maybe 2 on a good day, and would estimate an intake of around 1000 calories... but that every 4-5 days I would fall into a very large "binge" that would equate to 3-4k in calories in one sitting. Again, still told, cut my intake.
Problem was, I was being pretty honest. Yeah, I could have been off here and there but it came down to I really was eating like that. Had my physicians paid attention, they would have clearly been able to diagnose the eating disorder I was later diagnosed with. Instead, I spent another 1.5 years struggling, eventually getting so sick when trying to refeed to the 1500 calorie goal the dietitian set for me that I had to have aggressive treatment... and only after subsequent testing was done did they discover my lack of weight loss wasn't due to abnormal excessive calorie consumption, but rather abnormally low fasting metabolic rates.
After 6 months of hormone therapy and re-education, connecting with a therapist and having a proper ED diagnosis, I was able to see some progress... but it took me literally years. It took me asking some tough questions and holding my doctors directly accountable when appropriate to get the conversation in the right places.
Like you, I had doctors trying to talk to me about my weight when I had bronchitis or when I went in for elbow pain or something else that was logically unrelated to my weight-bearing. I found that asking a simple "Can you explain how my bronchitis has any direct relation to my weight?" type of question got most to shut up about it. When they didn't, I would simply say, I didn't come here today to discuss a weight loss plan, I came here today because I have an acute issue and would like to address it. The very few doctors that still continue to push the issue were subsequently fired.
I will say, however, that I found a stint on phentermine to be very helpful for me during a stall. Not all weight loss medications are so awful, but I do believe they should be used sparingly. There are some solutions out there, and we have to consider what we are saying to the doctor that may be propelling the conversation in certain directions. If we are talking about struggling with food cravings, energy, motivation, hunger, anything like that, the doctor may suggest some of the Rx medications out there since they are made to directly address these compulsive-type issues. Ultimately, the patient sets the topic and the tone.
Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts. Doctors, dietitians, every professional we work with is a fallible human being. Even if their professional focus is diet and weight loss, they can be wrong in their assumptions or out of date in their education. The important point is not so much that a doctor avoid the topic, but rather that they be open to learning more and accepting that patients do have ready access to new materials that could help everyone involved.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not sure how you define "way over," but I had plenty of days when I went over my MFP recommended sugar goal while I was losing weight -- all I needed to do was consume more fruit than usual.
Yeah to be clear by "way over" I mean like 200g or more, which isn't that hard to hit if you're like me before I started logging calories - Fruity Pebbles and milk for breakfast, maybe a soda at lunch, Snickers bar in the afternoon, maybe ice cream after dinner.
0 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Oh, for anyone who ate a lot of sugar, I think this is of course true. Even for me, who wasn't really a huge sugar person, because of course it's easier to justify something if you aren't thinking about how much you are eating (or calories).
I don't disagree that people cutting back will cut sugar, I just think for most people just cutting sugar wouldn't resolve the issue or the high cal items are not just sugar (unless someone was a huge non diet pop fan). To have 880 cals, I expect that Cinnabon has a bunch of fat too.
I think we agree, but too often I see people who assume that if someone is saying "it's not just sugar" that they are saying "no one should cut back on sugar." I don't think "sugar" is the culprit, but I do think that a good portion of the excess calories the average American consumes is sugar (differing person to person, of course, and less so for adults than kids on average). It's also fat and other refined carbs and a variety of foods differing from person to person, so focusing just on sugar (or carbs) makes no sense to me. Again, I know I'm not arguing with you, your post just provoked these thoughts.
Yeah I totally agree, my only point was that I think that calorie counting pretty much leads to a limited sugar intake by default. It seems to me like you'd have to be eating a pretty strange diet to go way over your recommended daily sugar intake goal while maintaining your calorie budget. I could be wrong, though!
I did it while losing, if we're talking about the MFP default sugar goal - over sugar, within calories. Every day. And while literally the only added sugar I ate was some concentrated fruit juice well down the ingredients list in a daily 30-calorie tablespoon of all-fruit spread. Crazy.
The rest was inherent sugars in whole fruit (couple of servings) and in lots of no-sugar-added dairy foods, most of them low/no fat. I'm ovo-lacto veg, and Northern European genes: I love my dairy.
ETA: I stopped tracking sugar in MFP, and tracked fiber instead. 3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions