KATIE COURIC'S PERILS OF FOOD POLICS
Options
Replies
-
My opinion: No one persuades anyone...you persuade yourself.
This is an interesting movie made by someone in the mainstream (as opposed to someone on the fringe).
It is worth at least considering beyond a trailer and an ad.0 -
Oh - here we go - perfect summation of why this documentary is awesome
Q - Where does the responsibility for educating people lie? Is it simply a personal responsibility, or a social one?
A - "It can be at the top, with an examination of how we are marketing to our kids. Maybe we should consider not having the USDA promote American agriculture and come up with our dietary guidelines, because it is such an inherent conflict of interest. I think there are things we can do at the highest level of government; there are also things we can do at a local level when it comes to our food and what our kids are being served every day on our school cafeteria. When you're sitting at the kitchen table, have a conversation about what you're eating, what we are buying and cooking. " (Replied by Katie Couric)0 -
Yep all sugars fault and not the fact that people ride their office chairs for 8-12 hours a day then come home and ride the couch the rest of the night, people hire landscapers or use a riding mower to mow their less than .25 acre yard, people drive their car to go 1 block down the street etc..........where is that documentary.
Also state schools over the past several decades have cut back on PE lessons. The technology age is upon us and too many kids sit in front of TV or games consoles.
I have actually seen a nice trend in my town. I often walk outside with my husband and in the last two weeks we have seen tonnes of kids outside playing...I was shocked really when I head the kids on the next street over counting...they were playing hide and seek...then we see
street hockey I bet there were 20 boys
biking
skate boarding
basketball etc
Which is not the norm here...it's been great to see.
Ah the good old day!
We had a tag/hiding seek game called forty - forty!0 -
you can make candy without sugar... you cant make french fries without the grease (at least not practically in a fast food restaurant)
those fats are present from the frying process of those foods, mcdonalds doesnt just inject lard into their burgers, in fact most fast producers are trying hard to reduce the amount of fats in their foods, the same cannot be said about most candy producers
what i said about sugar applies to everything. but you dont see producers adding in fats to their products, they add sugar
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
That means it's not easy to hide in everything, isn't easy to over consume, and isn't so damn tasty that people add it to everything? Or are you just throwing out other stuff to take away from the fact that what you said about sugar also applies to fats?
:huh:
Are you serious? Fast food (the only thing more demonized than sugar these days) isn't laden with fat? It's sugar adding all those calories to my burgers and fries? Is it sugar adding calories to my chips? Fat isn't just as predominate in baked goods and treats as sugar? Fried food isn't eaten to excess just like cookies and candy?
So the difference is that while fat is added it's added because that's what it takes to make those products (frying process) sugar is added to candy...to make those products?
Alright then.
this argument is getting a little redundant, most of what ive said applies to fast food as well, as ive said before.
I'm willing to admit this argument is a bit silly, but probably not for the reasons you think it is.0 -
No need to get all upset. My opinion on a message board in reply to your opinion on a message board are no reasons to feel like I'm jumping on you. My point exactly, up in arms when it's simply your choice what you put into your body and it's simply my choice what goes into mine. I apologize if you feel I put words into your mouth, I honestly felt that was what you were getting at. Anyways I'm not the only one who thinks all the extra sugar in the American diet is not good-
Not upset at all.
But I refuse to sit by while random people imply I said something I didn't.
If I was getting at it I would have stated it in black and white...I don't talk code.
no you aren't the only one but doesn't mean you are all right either, just like excess fat was the reason in the 80's, then excess carbs (ie white bread/rice)
Proof is in the results of people who count calories...the reason for obesity in the world not just the US is excess calories...which can come from anywhere...not just sugar.
Ok that's fine you can totally ignore the study I quoted.
Agree to disagree.
I didn't ignore it just the snip you chose to post as it was only part of it...I was reading the study.....Food is not ordinarily like a substance of abuse, but intermittent bingeing and deprivation changes that. Based on the observed behavioral and neurochemical similarities between the effects of intermittent sugar access and drugs of abuse, we suggest that sugar, as common as it is, nonetheless meets the criteria for a substance of abuse and may be “addictive” for some individuals when consumed in a “binge-like” manner.
the conclusion sheds more light on itFrom an evolutionary perspective, it is in the best interest of humans to have an inherent desire for food for survival. However, this desire may go awry, and certain people, including some obese and bulimic patients in particular, may develop an unhealthy dependence on palatable food that interferes with well-being. The concept of “food addiction” materialized in the diet industry on the basis of subjective reports, clinical accounts and case studies described in self-help books. The rise in obesity, coupled with the emergence of scientific findings of parallels between drugs of abuse and palatable foods has given credibility to this idea. The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
This is the conclusion which to me basically indicates that sugar is not evil but given certian predisposition to addiction a certian rats may react to it differently...given the chance to binge on sugar...then withdraw it from them completely...
how about they try moderation in the next study and see if the rats behave the same...
but even in the study conclusion they do not say humans get addicted to sugar...the quote is "unhealthy dependence"
Oh I'm so sorry... An "Unhealthy Dependence" is much better
:huh:
And this back and forth is getting just a bit annoying, don't you think? As I said before, agree to disagree. I'm out. Enjoy your blizzards :drinker:0 -
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
You can certainly survive without dietary sugar - in fact you can survive without dietary carbs of any source. It's may not be optimal but its certainly possible.
Most likely for a small set part of the population trying to survive without carbs would be very unhealthy given the displacement diet towards highly saturated fats. The American Heart Association, UK Stroke, German General Health have all outlined that no-carb diets are not a good idea because of this.
One might be able to survive without it, but carbs and sugar do have nutritional value. It's incorrect to state otherwise. They provide energy within the Krebs cycle.0 -
not what i said. im talking ADDED sugar (which comes from cane correct?), which is what is often over consumed because its added in high amounts.
i agree, we're talking about added sugar from cane here. you can get all you need from other sources
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
Ah, so cane sugar is the culprit?
There goes my rum.
So sugar DOES have nutritional value except when it comes from cane. OK.
and i said little, not none0 -
agree to disagree it is
you can make candy without sugar... you cant make french fries without the grease (at least not practically in a fast food restaurant)
those fats are present from the frying process of those foods, mcdonalds doesnt just inject lard into their burgers, in fact most fast producers are trying hard to reduce the amount of fats in their foods, the same cannot be said about most candy producers
what i said about sugar applies to everything. but you dont see producers adding in fats to their products, they add sugar
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
That means it's not easy to hide in everything, isn't easy to over consume, and isn't so damn tasty that people add it to everything? Or are you just throwing out other stuff to take away from the fact that what you said about sugar also applies to fats?
:huh:
Are you serious? Fast food (the only thing more demonized than sugar these days) isn't laden with fat? It's sugar adding all those calories to my burgers and fries? Is it sugar adding calories to my chips? Fat isn't just as predominate in baked goods and treats as sugar? Fried food isn't eaten to excess just like cookies and candy?
So the difference is that while fat is added it's added because that's what it takes to make those products (frying process) sugar is added to candy...to make those products?
Alright then.
this argument is getting a little redundant, most of what ive said applies to fast food as well, as ive said before.
I'm willing to admit this argument is a bit silly, but probably not for the reasons you think it is.0 -
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
You can certainly survive without dietary sugar - in fact you can survive without dietary carbs of any source. It's may not be optimal but its certainly possible.
Most likely for a small set part of the population trying to survive without carbs would be very unhealthy given the displacement diet towards highly saturated fats. The American Heart Association, UK Stroke, German General Health have all outlined that no-carb diets are not a good idea because of this.
One might be able to survive without it, but carbs and sugar do have nutritional value. It's incorrect to state otherwise. They provide energy within the Krebs cycle.
What's wrong with a diet high in saturated fats?
Agreed carbs do have nutritional value - simple sugar though does not! However those nutrients are available from other sources, but like I said it not optimal and I am certainly not advocating it - just pointing out that your initial statement was a little incorrect.
0 -
not what i said. im talking ADDED sugar (which comes from cane correct?), which is what is often over consumed because its added in high amounts.
i agree, we're talking about added sugar from cane here. you can get all you need from other sources
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
Ah, so cane sugar is the culprit?
There goes my rum.
So sugar DOES have nutritional value except when it comes from cane. OK.
So you are ok with high fructose CORN syrup?
How is added sugar, independent of source bad for you, if consumed in moderation.
My father doesn't calorie count, he is generally at a normal weight or under weight. He likes ice cream. Should I tell him to not eat the pint he has because somehow it is "bad" for him. If so, HOW? (Hint - it's over consumption of food that is the issue - not sugar)0 -
So Couric's show should only be about topics she is an expert on? That's never been a requirement for documentaries before, not sure why it would be now.
I'll watch this because it's a topic that's of interest to me and I have an open mind to see the various viewpoints presented.
Absolutely. Here however, at lovely MFP it's a total split if you talk about sugar-you're either for it or against it, love it or hate it, won't kill you or slowly kills you bit by bit. That seems to be the only view points (or so some would have it portrayed that way) and I'm sure this thread will turn into another ridiculous "good vs bad" issue when in reality your right, it's just a documentary.
Okay how about this.
Sugar, in moderation - it's not good and it's not bad!
In fact some might say it's our neutral buddy!
Well cut my legs off and call me Shorty! I agree with.....dat gum it......tennisdude. It is what makes my morning coffee sweeter and it is about as far as I need to go with sugar. Oh and it is in the fruit I eat. Beyond these things , and the hype, it is consumed in reasonable quantities by most folks.0 -
oh god, I saw her on O'reily last night ….this sounds like scaremongering bunch of Bs and just because Katie Couric is doing it everyone is going to think it is legit. She said on the factor that "calories in vs calories out" does not work for people and it about "quality" of calories and to avoid "added" sugar….I almost threw my remove through the TV. …
not at all shocked that Joanne is now endorsing this lunacy …
but in for more sugar fear mongering...
So, Katie, when people eat anything they want, in any quantity they want as long as it contains no sugar and gain weight, what crap will you then try and sell them? Calories in and calories out do and always will matter. I'm amazed that the main stream media is complicit in selling this snake oil to people. This "documentary" is no better than whatever fad diet others are shilling. There is no MAGIC BULLET. It's just a matter of creating a calorie deficit. A diet that does not do that will not work regardless of sugar content.0 -
oh god, I saw her on O'reily last night ….this sounds like scaremongering bunch of Bs and just because Katie Couric is doing it everyone is going to think it is legit. She said on the factor that "calories in vs calories out" does not work for people and it about "quality" of calories and to avoid "added" sugar….I almost threw my remove through the TV. …
not at all shocked that Joanne is now endorsing this lunacy …
but in for more sugar fear mongering...
So, Katie, when people eat anything they want, in any quantity they want as long as it contains no sugar and gain weight, what crap will you then try and sell them? Calories in and calories out do and always will matter. I'm amazed that the main stream media is complicit in selling this snake oil to people. This "documentary" is no better than whatever fad diet others are shilling. There is no MAGIC BULLET. It's just a matter of creating a calorie deficit. A diet that does not do that will not work regardless of sugar content.
Well then they come to MFP and go "I eat whole food, I cut out sugar and carbs, I work out, BUT I CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT!!! What am I doing wrong?"0 -
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
You can certainly survive without dietary sugar - in fact you can survive without dietary carbs of any source. It's may not be optimal but its certainly possible.
Most likely for a small set part of the population trying to survive without carbs would be very unhealthy given the displacement diet towards highly saturated fats. The American Heart Association, UK Stroke, German General Health have all outlined that no-carb diets are not a good idea because of this.
One might be able to survive without it, but carbs and sugar do have nutritional value. It's incorrect to state otherwise. They provide energy within the Krebs cycle.
What's wrong with a diet high in saturated fats?
Agreed carbs do have nutritional value - simple sugar though does not! However those nutrients are available from other sources, but like I said it not optimal and I am certainly not advocating it - just pointing out that your initial statement was a little incorrect.
To a large extent, nothing is wrong. However, there are two comments - given a general population not observing total energy balance, it I likely to result in calorie excess - the point is that the issue is not one food type or another but total consumption.
Second comment is that for a small part of the population lipid transport is such that it does result in increases in plasma cholesterol levels - hence the qualifier in my sentence "for a small part of the pop.."0 -
IMO - just watched the trailer and I like it.
A. its a "documentary", the only way to get a good portion of people to actualyl WATCH something is by using scare tactics (see "any news station" for an example)
B: I'll generalize here and say that a good portion of people who are obese have no idea how they got that way, and they might need to be "scared" a little to make a change... it's a learning process, change is the first step, they will learn more and more about truths as they go (just like all of us on here
)
C. I, personally, think sugar is addictive, if you look up the definition of addictive - IMO
D. The trailer I watched opened to discuss that a good amount of foods have "added sugar" - I didn't feel it was attacking sugar AT ALL, but more attacking the goverment for "adding sugar' where its not necessary - I totally, 100% agree - the government does a lot of F-ed up *kitten* to get us to consume, Im not a a parent, but if I was, I think I would feel ashamed if the only way I could get my kid to drink milk was by adding nestle strawberry syrup to it.... sugar is good, sugar is great, kids can have sugar - but theres something to be said when it becomes NECESSARY to add it to foods just to get kids to eat it.... again, IMO
E. I hate, hate, hate, Monsanto and wish I knew a lot less about what's happening to our seeds than I do - these two items are unrelated, but, I like to think that this news documentary is just setting a table to get people talking about bigger issues... I mean thay have to start somewhere - why not sugar - its something everyone, regarless of "class" can relate to and everyone can afford... if that makes sence, it does in my head, not to go all conspiracy theory, but i hope Im on to something here...
To sum up your views:
1. You need to scare people to get them to pay attention. If this involves lies or deceitful manipulation that's alright.
2. You think overweight people are dumb and don't know why they're overweight. (so somehow blaming things that aren't the reason for them being overweight will help them...something)
3. You put sugar in the same category as drugs and alcohol.
4. You think the government adds sugar to the foods produced and sold by private businesses. Because... honestly I got nothing for that one. That's just really dumb.
5. Monsanto's bad, because seeds. So the government needs to stop putting sugar in the food we buy.
You desperately need to educate yourself beyond propaganda. It's made you believe in complete nonsense.
Sure buddy, thats your opinion of my views - I don't agree with your "summation", and I find your comments rude and false, but you are totally entiteled to believe what ever crap about me that you want! Smile more! Be miserable less :-)0 -
my point is that sugar is over consumed because producers add it to too many foods, when it is unnecessary, causing over consumption in many cases. a pint of ice cream in itself is not bad, that point has been established.
not what i said. im talking ADDED sugar (which comes from cane correct?), which is what is often over consumed because its added in high amounts.
i agree, we're talking about added sugar from cane here. you can get all you need from other sources
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
Ah, so cane sugar is the culprit?
There goes my rum.
So sugar DOES have nutritional value except when it comes from cane. OK.
So you are ok with high fructose CORN syrup?
How is added sugar, independent of source bad for you, if consumed in moderation.
My father doesn't calorie count, he is generally at a normal weight or under weight. He likes ice cream. Should I tell him to not eat the pint he has because somehow it is "bad" for him. If so, HOW? (Hint - it's over consumption of food that is the issue - not sugar)
i dont know enough about high fructose corn syrup to comment much, but the same principles apply0 -
oh god, I saw her on O'reily last night ….this sounds like scaremongering bunch of Bs and just because Katie Couric is doing it everyone is going to think it is legit. She said on the factor that "calories in vs calories out" does not work for people and it about "quality" of calories and to avoid "added" sugar….I almost threw my remove through the TV. …
not at all shocked that Joanne is now endorsing this lunacy …
but in for more sugar fear mongering...
So, Katie, when people eat anything they want, in any quantity they want as long as it contains no sugar and gain weight, what crap will you then try and sell them? Calories in and calories out do and always will matter. I'm amazed that the main stream media is complicit in selling this snake oil to people. This "documentary" is no better than whatever fad diet others are shilling. There is no MAGIC BULLET. It's just a matter of creating a calorie deficit. A diet that does not do that will not work regardless of sugar content.
Well then they come to MFP and go "I eat whole food, I cut out sugar and carbs, I work out, BUT I CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT!!! What am I doing wrong?"
So sad and yet so true!0 -
fat is necessary for us and has nutritional value, sugar does very little for us in a positive manner
i definitely agree, its just sugar is so easy to hide in almost anything without being noticed by the average person, and the fact that it can be addicting makes it easy to over consumei think the mfp community doesnt realize that for us, sugar may not be "bad" because we count calories and account for it in our daily totals, whereas someone who doesnt count calories doesnt necessarily know what is going into their bodies calorie wise, so a bit of sugar can make a large difference for them. this i believe is the main reason for the demonizing of sugar, if producers and institutions (schools ect.) cut back on the sugar output then I'm sure we would see a decrease in obesity rates.
though i definitely agree moderation should be the emphasis of any nutritional based documentary
This applies to everything. A bit of fat can make a huge difference. A bit of protein can make a difference. Excess carbs will make a difference.
I can easily take down a 10-12ounce steak and if I did that constantly I'd put on weight and yet I don't see documentaries about how steak is making me a fatass. (Or at least not one people take seriously. :indifferent: )
Yeah mean like fat?
Well, except for the simple fact that one can't survive without sugars of some sort. Gluconeogenesis, it's a thing.
You can certainly survive without dietary sugar - in fact you can survive without dietary carbs of any source. It's may not be optimal but its certainly possible.
Most likely for a small set part of the population trying to survive without carbs would be very unhealthy given the displacement diet towards highly saturated fats. The American Heart Association, UK Stroke, German General Health have all outlined that no-carb diets are not a good idea because of this.
One might be able to survive without it, but carbs and sugar do have nutritional value. It's incorrect to state otherwise. They provide energy within the Krebs cycle.
What's wrong with a diet high in saturated fats?
Agreed carbs do have nutritional value - simple sugar though does not! However those nutrients are available from other sources, but like I said it not optimal and I am certainly not advocating it - just pointing out that your initial statement was a little incorrect.
To a large extent, nothing is wrong. However, there are two comments - given a general population not observing total energy balance, it I likely to result in calorie excess - the point is that the issue is not one food type or another but total consumption.
Second comment is that for a small part of the population lipid transport is such that it does result in increases in plasma cholesterol levels - hence the qualifier in my sentence "for a small part of the pop.."
A diet with limited carbs would probably lead to under consumption than over consumption IMO and my own general experience.
Additionally a diet high in sat fat and low in carbs has been shown to reduce levels of triglycerides and increase particle sizes of LDL's - so has a positive affect on overall cholesterol, how that would translate to the small part of the pop you mention - not sure?
Again IMO a healthy carb quantity for me is 50 - 150g daily - mainly from veg. I wouldn't advocate or try my self a no carb diet, but if I met someone that did, I would be suggesting they rush to complete their bucket list. lol0 -
This has been very entertaining, but now I have to go to work. I'll see y'all on my lunch hour.
Oh, and now I want to watch the documentary for some reason. I wouldn't have paid any attention to it but for this lively debate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions