The men who made us fat

BeachIron

Wait. Didn't you say earlier that this thread was only about those two questions in the OP?

Nope, I said the OP was asking two questions, and half the responses were knee jerk directed entirely at the title of the thread.

But now there's something more you want to discuss, social policy, and since that interests you that is legitimate?

I don't have a particular desire to discuss social policy, but it's the only subject that can actually be discussed with any depth on these topics. Personal responsibility is the baseline assumption for everyone using this website/app. It's less worth discussing than the topic of SEC superiority in Tuscaloosa - even though a lot of folks here and there love to talk and agree amongst themselves about the topic. It doesn't go anywhere.

The questions were rhetorical devices to elicit a debate on social policy. The debate started and the ad hominems and straw man arguments ensued.

Well, you can take the questions to social policy, or just answer them - foods that you were surprised had added sugar is pretty straightforward and on-topic for this forum. But yeah, there was half a page of people arguing against a strawman almost immediately. Which brought the "these aren't opposing viewpoints" and off to the races.

And now you appear to be angry.

I don't think I am. I don't even know what I'd be angry about?

And frankly, I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to what to do with social policy. I have seen a number of additional rhetorical questions though.

I assume you wrote this while Pcast was writing his actual social policy suggestions. And by the time I finish this, maybe you'll be on those. I think there's a fairly widespread agreement that guaranteeing corn (or solar energy, or whatever) profits with taxpayer money is pretty questionable. Shrugs.

Okay. This is a better response than "duh."

I will say that I think you will find few people, who are not directly benefiting from U.S. farm policy, who would openly support U.S. farm policy.

pcastagner

I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?

Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.

Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?

Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on

I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.

We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).

Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.

Is that going to happen? No.

Do I want it to happen? No.

Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.

I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.

Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.

So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?


Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?


Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.

Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?

What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.

I do I do!

Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.

Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.

Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.

Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)



That's a start.

Okay.

Some questions.

How would you define "investments that could be affected by how the rules are written?" I mean this in all seriousness as if you are familiar with laws on this point, they can be extremely complex. Would the legislator be allowed to invest in only mutual funds, or example, that invested in a large portfolio of stocks representative of some market index? The S&P 500 as a specific example.

As for the fresh look at subsidies, let's take that look. Which crops are worth subsidizing and which are not? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should do away with subsidies for specific crops altogether, as that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place?

There's already a good deal of research on human behavior. Do you have a background in this? My background is in philosophy, business and law, so I'm somewhat limited to those unless I play out of my pay grade, which I do on occasion.

And just as one suggestion of my own, why don't we take what we do know, that eating less and moving more works for the individual, and focus on policies that will better educate the public about this? Perhaps if we tell them that they can change their own lives for the better enough times, they may actually come to believe it? Just my own 2 cents.

We are all amateurs here, no worries about your background or mine.


For divestment, we already do this when it comes to judges ruling on cases. Since your background is in law I don't need to explain that. Just extend the same ethic to legislators. And put the burden of proving their investments are not with interested parties on the legislators. I would contend that if legislators were not allowed to personally profit from decisions ostensibly in the public interest, a great many of them would simply quit and make room for people actually interested in the public good.



I see you added education to the list, which I can agree with, AS AN ADDITION. It's not an alternative and we aren't faced with the dilemma of choosing one or the other.


I see you really, really want groups to functions in ways that are predicted by your perception of individual behavior, but this is neither rational nor evident. It just doesn't happen. Further, I would contend that most humans have a pretty skewed view of just how rational they are, achieved by forgetting all the irrational things we do while constructing a personal narrative that focuses on our individuality. Rational choice theory is very seductive, but there is a slight problem: humans are not rational by nature.

May I politely suggest that in the future you save the pages of posts referencing Stalinism, communism, etc. and start with something like this? I don't agree with everything you have written here, and I honestly don't have a personal interest in debating it for the reasons I stated earlier, but it does move the discussion forward. It also gives someone else the opportunity to now enter and debate with you regarding your points.

There are also a couple of debating groups on MFP that provide a better forum for social policy debates. You may find joining one of these helpful as you can wade into controversial issues there without the mods shutting it down.

Best of luck and enjoy!

edit: typo

Well I can't disagree. I wish I never acted out of frustration, but in this thread I did, and it probably wasn't fair, and I was reacting to my "old self" that I saw reflected in the incessant comments about personal responsibility that truly miss the forest for the trees.

I've always been the class clown. Hey, nobody's perfect!

claudialenz711

I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.

We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).

Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.

Is that going to happen? No.

Do I want it to happen? No.

Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.

I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.

Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.

The OP asked two questions. Half the answers in this thread have been complete knee jerk reactions to the thread title.

The way this could have gone:
Yeah, I look at food labels. It's a good idea.
I was also surprised to learn <insert any food here> had added sugar, but I <like it, avoid it, fit it in my macros>.

The way it went:
Men don't make me fat! I make me fat! I didn't read your questions and I don't care, because I just wanted to say that!

Thanks .... Well put though The bulk of the discussion is about the content of the documentary, which I would guess not everyone who commented here has actually watched! Am still fascinated by the dynamic the subject has taken on lol

smantha32

Please explain to me how the FDA, which is a government agency wholly funded by the Federal Government, gets rich when people get sick? It's not like the FDA gets a cut of the profits from Pharmaceutical manufacturers. In fact, there are laws which specifically prohibit that!

High level people from various corporations end up as lobbyists or working in positions in the FDA where they can make decisions to benefit the companies they supposedly "used" to work for. Kickbacks go from the corporation to those people.

Seesawboomerang

If I know how to read (which I'm ALMOST positive that I do) I'm taking a stab in the dark here that the OP's original post didn't say that sugar MADE her or anyone else fat. I THINK she may have been simply stating that she was unaware just how much sugar is in EVERYTHING. But again... what do I know... maybe I should join in the fun and jump to conclusions because it's amusing everyone else.

the title of the thread is "The men who made us fat."

?

Because the OP is talking about a programme called "The men who made us fat".

Jacques Peretti, the programme maker, has a new doc out (this week in the UK I think) called ... "The men who made us thin" about how the same manufacturers that produce junk food are often the ones plugging "diet" products also.

I just watched this and started a discussion here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1070658-the-men-who-made-us-thin-bbc-link

Sorry if it's been discussed in any depth in this thread, but a quick scan of this thread seems to show an indepth discussion unrelated to the interesting topic of diet culture and the big business surrounding it.

claudialenz711

If I know how to read (which I'm ALMOST positive that I do) I'm taking a stab in the dark here that the OP's original post didn't say that sugar MADE her or anyone else fat. I THINK she may have been simply stating that she was unaware just how much sugar is in EVERYTHING. But again... what do I know... maybe I should join in the fun and jump to conclusions because it's amusing everyone else.

the title of the thread is "The men who made us fat."

?

Because the OP is talking about a programme called "The men who made us fat".

Jacques Peretti, the programme maker, has a new doc out (this week in the UK I think) called ... "The men who made us thin" about how the same manufacturers that produce junk food are often the ones plugging "diet" products also.

I just watched this and started a discussion here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1070658-the-men-who-made-us-thin-bbc-link

Sorry if it's been discussed in any depth in this thread, but a quick scan of this thread seems to show an indepth discussion unrelated to the interesting topic of diet culture and the big business surrounding it.

Great you've started that thread and not me lol The diet industry has never been any of my concern since I've actually never been on one of those crazy ones (nor have I taken any weight loss products) as all I ever did and will do in the future is portion control, smart choices and pumping up my activity level The reason this hasn't been discussed in this thread must be obvious ... right? Since this thread is related to foods we all consume daily, dieting or not, and how it ultimately affects our ability to make those smart choices in terms of healthy foods. And I sure hope that those who are on MFP have realised by now that dieting (like shown in the program you're referring to) doesn't work in the long run ... but the foods we chose to consume will

bostonwolf

Just watching a fascinating 3part documentary about the Foodindustry on UK television (BBC2).
Part 1 about the US and the introduction of Cornsyrup and the wide range foods it's added to. Very good and highly informative. Watch it if you can.

It's terrifying how the US industry totally ignores the impact Sugar (in various forms and artificial Sweeteners) has on the increase in Obesity.

Who on here really checks all the food labels?

What has been winding me up for years is when I discovered that most of the available varieties of smoked Salmon (which i love and eat a lot of) have got sugar added to it! Why on earth? Totally unnecessary for the flavour. The same with Bacon! Good news is there are some without added sugar or any other form of sweetener.

Which are the foods you've discovered have sugars added to it and surprised you the most?

Almost all cured foods have sugar in that. Not through malice, that's just the way its done. Look up a recipe for gravlax (Swedish cured salmon)

As you said though, if you try to avoid sugar it can be done pretty easily. Don't eat processed foods and do more of your own cooking and the problem is largely solved.

Also try to make sure the people in the coffee shop don't add sugar after you twice told them not to...*kitten*.

Seesawboomerang

........ And I sure hope that those who are on MFP have realised by now that dieting (like shown in the program you're referring to) doesn't work in the long run ... but the foods we chose to consume will

I would hope so too.

Unfortunately I do think a lot are here for quick fixes. Even among those of us who recognise the need for a lifelong change in attitude/approach, it's hard to get past a culture of disinformation.

It's not just the hidden calories in take-outs, the hidden sugar in supermarket produce, but also the hidden agenda in wider society (whether driven by big business, politics, or other more base or basic instincts)

jsd_135

Every year in America since soda was introduced (coca cola containing high fructose corn syrup) there is a continuous rise in obesity. It is America's beverage of choice. There is a direct, undeniable correlation with that.

I think the calories in Coke w/ sugar vs. Coke w/ HFCS is pretty much the same. The difference, IMO, is that people started bringing it into their homes. If the Andy Griffith show is any indication, a bottle of soda was something that you enjoyed every now and then while shooting the sh** at Goober's gas station on a hot day, or at the soda fountain. Those bottles were also small (8 ounces?). By the time my mom started *occasionally* buying it (late 60's/early 70's), the bottles (tall green ones that you paid a deposit on) were probably 10 ounces, maybe 12. By the time I was in college (80's), my roommates were buying it in 12-pack cans. I had pretty much given it up by this time because I no longer liked the taste of Coke (New Coke debacle, introduction of HFCS, which I hate the taste of in soda). Now we have 24 packs, which have been around for a while. There are a lot of things that people routinely eat now (breakfast pastries, fast food and restaurant food in general) that were occasional treats 30 years ago. Many things people routinely consume (sweet coffee drinks, supersize desserts, whole categories of snack foods) didn't even exist. I can't blame "the men" for this. It was pretty obvious to me as a 20-year-old that routinely eating a large bag of Chili Cheese Fritos would make me fat. That didn't always stop me, but I always knew who to blame.

jsd_135

It's not just the hidden calories in take-outs, the hidden sugar in supermarket produce, but also the hidden agenda in wider society (whether driven by big business, politics, or other more base or basic instincts)

I'm sorry, but what hidden sugar is in my produce? I get that they can breed varieties of produce to be sweeter (e.g., sweet corn), but "hidden sugar" implies that they're actually adding it to the fruit or vegetables. If you're talking about frozen or canned stuff, well then you have a label to refer to, so the sugar's not hidden. So what does this mean?

dejamos

The BBC's modus operandi is to blame the big corporations.

If you don't want corn syrup in your products don't buy products with corn syrup in them.

Which pretty much means don't buy [food] products.

lovetotravel04

I'm not sure why this thread got into a strange discussion, but I agree with you about food corporations. Their goal is really not our health, it's about selling the product, no matter what's in it. Of course, some food companies care about what they put into their food (ie: Stonyfield).
What I'm always surprised with is the sugar that is put into some tomato sauces--I don't want sweet tomato sauce on my pasta. If I did, I could certainly add it.
Thanks for this post, I get so tired of the corn industry lobbying for HFCS and other companies talking about how wonderful partially hydrogenated fats are for you. Oh, and just let us add a little of this stuff in the food--slightly under the regulations--and call it ".....-free" (when it's not free of the ingredient).

jsd_135

The BBC's modus operandi is to blame the big corporations.

If you don't want corn syrup in your products don't buy products with corn syrup in them.

Which pretty much means don't buy [food] products.

I buy plenty of food without added corn sweeteners. It can be done, and it's not that hard.

etoiles_argentees

MEN who made us fat?? Now we are sexist as well!? What about those corporate WOMEN? geez! That must be hy i'm fat!

LOL! Just trying to get members think. Blaming? I've never been overweight in my life. 107 pounds was the highest. I'm naturally thin, always have been.

tomteboda

Yes, it is bad here in US. I try to minimize sugar whenever I can. For example, I NEVER drink sugar water (cola, lemonade, gatorade, energy drinks, "vitamin water", smoothies, fancy coffee drinks - they are all SUGAR WATER). And still, every day on MFP, my sugar intake ends up over the target amount. But with advertising, marketing, and general availability, even this small effort seems "counter-culture".

A big part of the reason your sugar winds up being over the recommendations is that they're counting all native sugars in food. Eat an ear of corn? Congrats, you just consumed 6 grams of sugar. My daily banana is 14 grams. MFP suggests I keep my sugar under 50 grams, which isn't very hard to blow through when also trying to get the recommended number of daily servings of fresh fruit and vegetables because the MFP counter isn't counting added sugars at all. And at any rate its junk science to differentiate sugars and carbohydrates metabolically.

tomteboda

In America it is almost near impossible to avoid corn by products in foods, from corn starch, corn syrup, corn meal, its not health, the most recent thing I found it in and know it was not in it prior (at least not on the label) is tea bags, Lipton especially now lists modified corn starch on its label as an ingredient in its tea, why? there should be nothing but tea.

Corn starch is added to tea and other products to prevent caking or clumping from moisture in the air.

natalie412

Nothing like absolving yourself of personal responsibility!

Yep.

BeachIron

The BBC's modus operandi is to blame the big corporations.

If you don't want corn syrup in your products don't buy products with corn syrup in them.

Which pretty much means don't buy [food] products.

I buy plenty of food without added corn sweeteners. It can be done, and it's not that hard.

^ This. Though the only reason I care is the calories. Sugar and HFCS are great in Pop Tarts and Oreos, which I enjoy sometimes.

pcastagner

The BBC's modus operandi is to blame the big corporations.

If you don't want corn syrup in your products don't buy products with corn syrup in them.

Which pretty much means don't buy [food] products.

I buy plenty of food without added corn sweeteners. It can be done, and it's not that hard.

^ This. Though the only reason I care is the calories. Sugar and HFCS are great in Pop Tarts and Oreos, which I enjoy sometimes.

Also very good in McDonald's chocolate dipped ice cream-like frozen dessert cones.

Seesawboomerang

It's not just the hidden calories in take-outs, the hidden sugar in supermarket produce, but also the hidden agenda in wider society (whether driven by big business, politics, or other more base or basic instincts)

I'm sorry, but what hidden sugar is in my produce? I get that they can breed varieties of produce to be sweeter (e.g., sweet corn), but "hidden sugar" implies that they're actually adding it to the fruit or vegetables. If you're talking about frozen or canned stuff, well then you have a label to refer to, so the sugar's not hidden. So what does this mean?

Well there are natural sugars in fruit and veg ... which of course are not being 'evilly' snuck in by giant corporations, but for those without a real understanding of what they're putting in their body, would present some challenges should they start to address their intake.

Not so much 'hidden' as 'unexpected' in other cases. You might not check a packet for ingredients if you make assumptions that a canned item is only going to contain what the picture shows. OK I glance at ingredients (years as a vegetarian made this second nature) but the majority don't.

There's so many out there who place trust in food manufacturers to provide something which is nutritionally complete. If buying a ready meal, expect it falls within 'safe' ranges, not realising how much salt and sugar is added to compensate for the lack of flavour (more usually achieved by cooking fresh ingredients).