Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

SanteMulberry

I think it may be a little foolish to suggest the government and big industry are not culpable in the war on obesity. Proclaiming personal responsibility is painting with a broad brush. Yes, we are all responsible for our own lives (and our children's) but we don't live in a padded room without outside influences.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth when members with 75+ pounds of weight loss are suddenly wagging their fingers at others for not jumping on the personal responsibility train and dismissing the idea of government and the food industry should have culpability in this.

It is because of that loss that we can say personal responsibility is the key! It was taking that responsibility and acting on it that made those losses happen. It was ignoring those personal responsibilities that piled the weight on in the first place.

But some of it was because we were exposed to the misinformation on government "food guides". When you fight what science is proving (that eating a lot of added sugar is deleterious to health) you are contributing to the confusion of obese folk and then when you appeal to "personal responsibility" as the cure for obesity, you cause them further pain. We are offering them an alternative. They could take "personal responsibility" and cut out or drastically cut back on certain foods and live. Every one of you that is arguing the other side has mostly done the same. I expect that few of you eat much sugar or starch as a percentage of your diet, unless you are spending hours at the gym every day. (Very few people have the time to do so.)

We were all told that eating low-fat and "healthy whole grains" was the way to increased health and vigor. For some of us, that was deadly advice and it was based more on politics than sound scientific research. My younger brother is a case in point. I'm fairly certain that his soda pop habit and sugar-sweetened coffee, as a young man, was responsible for his acquisition of Type II diabetes (it was discovered when he was in his early forties). Even his doctor was ignorant and told him, at that point, that all he needed to do was to eliminate as much fat as possible from his diet. (He was never told, at any point to cut back drastically on bread and sugar which were for him, mainstays). He dutifully cut way back on all fat...and got sicker. He, at no point, had ever been obese--just paunchy. He did lose weight but I suspect that he lost more in muscle than he did body fat. He is now very ill and insulin-dependent. I took a different route when my blood sugar and blood pressure began to be unacceptably high. I chose to eliminate wheat and added sugar from my diet and I have gotten much healthier for it. The proof of the pudding...

darkguardian419

Read the original Atkins Diet book. I know you won't so here is a quick summary:

In 1800, sugar consumption was like 2 pounds per year. By 1900 it was like 4 lbs/yr. The industrial revolution in the 20's is where it began to mushroom up. Today it is something stupid like 100 pounds per year.

The next page shows the diabetes rate by year...with about a 20 year lag time, the number of peeps with diabetes mushrooms at the same rate as sugar consumption.

From Wikipedia: The per capita consumption of refined sugar in the United States has varied between 27 and 46 kilograms (60 and 101 lb) in the last 40 years. In 2008, American per capita total consumption of sugar and sweeteners, exclusive of artificial sweeteners, equaled 61.9 kilograms (136 lb) per year. This consisted of 29.65 kg (65.4 lb) pounds of refined sugar and 31 kg (68.3 lb) pounds of corn-derived sweeteners per person.

So you're saying an increase in calories made people fat, and being obese caused people to be at a higher risk of developing diabetes?

No ****.....

georgiaTRIs

people join the gym and then never go. I see people come in ride the bike at about 8 mph for 15 minutes then leave. That is their workout for the day. I guess anything is better than nothing. But my fear is they go for the Big Mac special because they did just work out. I really need to get better at the sugar intake. But I will get there. I'm a work in progress

SanteMulberry

Danielle_husb: "Another key point that the film (sloppily) brings up is the fact that so much emphasis is placed upon activity levels rather than diet. It's a common refrain on this site that "you can't out-exercise a bad diet." While the film does make the mistake of linking this back to the over-consumption of sugar, which is kind of convoluted, it's still accurate to point out that telling overweight or obese individuals that they are just not moving enough is not going to solve the problem. They also need to address their food habits. "

But one point that they apparently didn't quite get across is that eating sugar itself causes sluggishness. It is the fructose content in sucrose (sucrose, i.e. table sugar, is 50% fructose) that is the problem. When animals want to gain fat for an anticipated time of scarce food, they go after as much fructose as they can find. An example would be the gorging on wild blueberries that black bears do at the end of summer. They eat massive quantities of blueberries and whatever other fruit they can find. (If you want to attract bears to your property set out a couple of bushels of apples.) They get quite fat and sluggish on all that fructose. The fructose apparently sends a bio-chemical signal to cause their metabolism to slow down in anticipation of the winter's hibernation. Even humans are part of this process of "winter preparedness". Our temperate-climate, hunter-gatherer ancestors would eat large quantities of fruit as it became available in the late summer and early fall (and they did learn to dry small amounts for the winter) and grew "sleek and fat" for the winter when there was little to gather and they necessarily subsisted on whatever game they could find and what few tubers they could prise from the frozen ground. They would be quite thin by the spring. Some of them even acquired "rabbit starvation" if that was the only game available because rabbits simply are not fat enough to sustain anyone (they rely on fur for warmth rather than body fat/body mass such as would be the case with larger mammals). In modern times, "winter" never comes for us and we just continue to get fatter and fatter as we continue to eat large amounts of sugar. This is based on solid research. Science is coming to unravel more of the "mysteries" of obesity and Type II diabetes. There is a research doc named, Richard J. Johnson, who is an expert on Type II diabetes and its connection to renal failure (he is head of the renal division at the medical center, University of Colorado). He names the consumption of sugar as a primary culprit in the high blood sugar levels that most adults experience and sadly many children now do. In his practice, they are seeing 9 year old children who are Type II diabetics.

SanteMulberry

people join the gym and then never go. I see people come in ride the bike at about 8 mph for 15 minutes then leave. That is their workout for the day. I guess anything is better than nothing. But my fear is they go for the Big Mac special because they did just work out. I really need to get better at the sugar intake. But I will get there. I'm a work in progress

LOL--yeah, I used to see the same thing at the pool. These women would come into a water exercise class and stand around and talk to their friends for most of the session--only moving enough to keep warm in the water (which is always 81-82 degrees anyway). Then afterward in the locker room would say, "Okay--who's up for doughnuts?!"

runner475

Yep, the tin foil hat crowd has arrived smh

I actually love these threads. I look at the profile pictures and weight lost tickers of everyone from both sides. Sort of an interesting divide when you start keeping a tally.

Also there are people who set small goals and re-adjust their tickers after they reach that small goal.

Your logic fails in analyzing that group.

runner475

The post should have been "If you have seen FED UP documentary what are your thoughts?"

The discussion and the responses would have been a lot more different.

tquill

I watched FED UP, and it's not just about "sugar is bad," though that is one of the conclusions drawn by the film (well, sugar in large quantities). If all of you actually watched it, which I doubt based on the responses, I think that you overlooked some of the more rational discussion points.

With regard to food corporations, of course they are trying to make a profit, and no the government should not stop Nabisco from making Oreos. However, a problem does occur when you have food companies that are funding biased studies, lobbying the government to alter funding allocations, and making deals with public schools that allow the company to determine what is served to school children for breakfast and lunch. The film addresses both this and the fact that consumers are misled to believe that food like lean pockets (specific example from the film) are the solution to their weight problems because they are the "lean" version of a favorite food. (Not that you can't eat lean pockets as part of a healthy diet, but switching all of your food to "low fat" and "lean" without tracking or adjusting your overall diet is not going to solve the problem.)

I think that we all need to acknowledge that some people are not as intelligent as other people. Some people believe that seeing "low fat" on a box of pop tarts means that it will help them lose weight, partially because they've heard these messages from food marketers and the federal government for decades now. Some people believe that they can eat twice as many lean pockets because it says "lean" on the box. Is this ridiculous? Yes. Should the government outlaw lean pockets? Of course not. Does eating a pop tart or a lean pocket make you balloon up to 300 pounds? No way.

It is possible to limit a food corporation's ability to market a food in a manner that convinces uneducated individuals that it is the solution to their weight problem without banning the product (or advertising of the product). While weight loss is definitely about personal responsibility, there are other factors at play here.

I understand your premise, but attempting to limit marketing abilities of companies is still not the answer. People have to look out for themselves, plain and simple. No one is really looking out for them.

Companies care about profits, government cares about votes and power. I don't consider any of those more noble than the other. As you correctly pointed out, the government can be heavily influenced by companies through lobbying and other means (eliminating lobbying would not fix anything)... so how do you expect the government will limit the marketing power of private companies when it's private companies that influence the government in the first place? The answer is that the companies powerful enough to successfully lobby the government will use that power against their competition... giving you fewer choices.

As I mentioned, I don't consider the motives of government or companies more or less noble than one another... but there's a distinct difference between the two that people need to remember. You can choose the private companies you give money to (or none at all), but the government will take your money regardless of whether or not you agree with its policies. Doesn't that, by default, encourage private companies to be more responsive to our demands?

daydreams_of_pretty

I watched FED UP, and it's not just about "sugar is bad," though that is one of the conclusions drawn by the film (well, sugar in large quantities). If all of you actually watched it, which I doubt based on the responses, I think that you overlooked some of the more rational discussion points.

With regard to food corporations, of course they are trying to make a profit, and no the government should not stop Nabisco from making Oreos. However, a problem does occur when you have food companies that are funding biased studies, lobbying the government to alter funding allocations, and making deals with public schools that allow the company to determine what is served to school children for breakfast and lunch. The film addresses both this and the fact that consumers are misled to believe that food like lean pockets (specific example from the film) are the solution to their weight problems because they are the "lean" version of a favorite food. (Not that you can't eat lean pockets as part of a healthy diet, but switching all of your food to "low fat" and "lean" without tracking or adjusting your overall diet is not going to solve the problem.)

I think that we all need to acknowledge that some people are not as intelligent as other people. Some people believe that seeing "low fat" on a box of pop tarts means that it will help them lose weight, partially because they've heard these messages from food marketers and the federal government for decades now. Some people believe that they can eat twice as many lean pockets because it says "lean" on the box. Is this ridiculous? Yes. Should the government outlaw lean pockets? Of course not. Does eating a pop tart or a lean pocket make you balloon up to 300 pounds? No way.

It is possible to limit a food corporation's ability to market a food in a manner that convinces uneducated individuals that it is the solution to their weight problem without banning the product (or advertising of the product). While weight loss is definitely about personal responsibility, there are other factors at play here.

I understand your premise, but attempting to limit marketing abilities of companies is still not the answer. People have to look out for themselves, plain and simple. No one is really looking out for them.

Companies care about profits, government cares about votes and power. I don't consider any of those more noble than the other. As you correctly pointed out, the government can be heavily influenced by companies through lobbying and other means (eliminating lobbying would not fix anything)... so how do you expect the government will limit the marketing power of private companies when it's private companies that influence the government in the first place? The answer is that the companies powerful enough to successfully lobby the government will use that power against their competition... giving you fewer choices.

As I mentioned, I don't consider the motives of government or companies more or less noble than one another... but there's a distinct difference between the two that people need to remember. You can choose the private companies you give money to (or none at all), but the government will take your money regardless of whether or not you agree with its policies. Doesn't that, by default, encourage private companies to be more responsive to our demands?

The fact that it would be so difficult to stop companies from misleading the public through marketing is part of the problem, and there is no clear solution. I don't think that the government should stop a company from marketing its product, but I do think that companies should not be allowed to mislead the public.

For example, there is an oreo commercial out right now that shows a visually pleasing animation of oreos bouncing around with the overall message that somehow oreos are unique and special. If you like oreos, it will definitely make you want to eat a whole bag. It's a perfectly fine commercial. (Although I think that some people would argue against allowing it during programming aimed at kids, but I'm not going there.)

On the other hand, when a company markets low-nutrient food that is full of fillers as "healthy," "low fat," "lean," etc. and encourages people who are struggling with obesity to just switch over to the "diet" versions and eat with impunity, then that company is engaging in misleading advertising.

The problem is not the creation and marketing of the lean options, it's the fact that people are told that these options are the solution to obesity. It's the fact that these options are basically crisis control for a company that is afraid that you won't buy its product any longer. They know that the low fat product has more sugar and roughly the same amount of calories, but they want you to believe it's healthier. Some people are really not able to understand that this is happening and proceed blindly down the path of unsuccessful perma-dieting.

We all keep coming back to the fact that companies care about profits, which is true. If everyone started eating a bag of oreos every day, Nabisco would be ecstatic. That's part of the problem with allowing food companies to participate in nutritional recommendations/studies or in educating the public about eating choices. They are supposed to be getting us to eat the oreos. Someone has to draw the line as to how far they can go to convince us. Can they tell us that oreos will make us famous? Can they promise that oreos will cure cancer?

The government might not be the answer, but we can't just chalk it up to individual responsibility because people are being told misleading messages. Talking about these issues is the start of figuring out some kind of solution.

JoRocka

people join the gym and then never go. I see people come in ride the bike at about 8 mph for 15 minutes then leave. That is their workout for the day. I guess anything is better than nothing. But my fear is they go for the Big Mac special because they did just work out. I really need to get better at the sugar intake. But I will get there. I'm a work in progress

LOL--yeah, I used to see the same thing at the pool. These women would come into a water exercise class and stand around and talk to their friends for most of the session--only moving enough to keep warm in the water (which is always 81-82 degrees anyway). Then afterward in the locker room would say, "Okay--who's up for doughnuts?!"

and how is any of that any of either of your buisness?

oh wait- that's right it's not.

I understand it's frustrating- but it's completely not your problem.

I actually love these threads. I look at the profile pictures and weight lost tickers of everyone from both sides. Sort of an interesting divide when you start keeping a tally.

please- by all means- I'd love to know which side you put me on- because it's totally relevant to this thread.

SanteMulberry

people join the gym and then never go. I see people come in ride the bike at about 8 mph for 15 minutes then leave. That is their workout for the day. I guess anything is better than nothing. But my fear is they go for the Big Mac special because they did just work out. I really need to get better at the sugar intake. But I will get there. I'm a work in progress

LOL--yeah, I used to see the same thing at the pool. These women would come into a water exercise class and stand around and talk to their friends for most of the session--only moving enough to keep warm in the water (which is always 81-82 degrees anyway). Then afterward in the locker room would say, "Okay--who's up for doughnuts?!"

and how is any of that any of either of your buisness?

oh wait- that's right it's not.

I understand it's frustrating- but it's completely not your problem.

And how does that entitle you to jump in and castigate both of us? oh wait--it doesn't. Neither one of us were taking it on as our problem--we were just making an observation. Lighten up, please.

FredDoyle

Well, today I learned they have the FDA in Muskoka...who knew.
Seriously, take responsibility for yourself. Ontario is already too much of a nanny state.

xmichaelyx

RHachicho made this idiotic comment:

As someone who has actually HAD to quit and addictive drug I find that statement highly laughable. Sugar is not addictive. At all. It is merely habit forming. Like biting your fingernails. Anyone who compares it to a heroine addiction is talking out of their bumholes.

It's a shame that, with your background as an addict, you have a child's view of what is and isn't addiction. Addiction is merely continued use in the face of adverse consequences.

Addiction isn't whatever you want it to be. It has a specific medical definition, with specific medical implications. Addiction Medicine is a well-researched, decades-old discipline that you apparently know nothing about.

Sugar, like everything else that can release dopamine, can absolutely be addictive.

Lourdesong

so- at what point are you going to take some personal responsibility for yourself??? or are you just going to waltz through your life playing the victim and expecting everyone to pander to you?

there is so much of that in this thread I can hardly stomach it.

own up.

This. It seems like in every debate or discussion there's one side that is clenching ever so tightly to their self-imposed victim-identity, and trying to evangelize that powerless identity to others to adorn themselves with, it is truly a nauseating thing to observe.

tquill

The government might not be the answer, but we can't just chalk it up to individual responsibility because people are being told misleading messages. Talking about these issues is the start of figuring out some kind of solution.

Every message has a writer and every writer has a bias. Even if there wasn't a bias... there is almost never a consensus about anything... so we'd never be able to agree on any message. It wouldn't surprise me if all this pampering of people's ignorance is why scams are so effective. Once people realize they have to take care of themselves, maybe they'd start.

lemurcat12

RHachicho made this idiotic comment:

As someone who has actually HAD to quit and addictive drug I find that statement highly laughable. Sugar is not addictive. At all. It is merely habit forming. Like biting your fingernails. Anyone who compares it to a heroine addiction is talking out of their bumholes.

It's a shame that, with your background as an addict, you have a child's view of what is and isn't addiction. Addiction is merely continued use in the face of adverse consequences.

It's more complicated than that, and also what that means is not nearly as casual as you'd have it.

If I watch TV to procrastinate doing work and end up stressed out and having to pull an all-nighter at work, that's adverse consequences, yet to conclude from that that I am "addicted" to TV would be foolish.

Similarly, if I exceed my maintenance calories by eating a cookie, I might gain weight, especially if I do it regularly (and do it with other food too). But that is a rather hypothetical-seeming possibility for many, and thus pales in comparison with the pleasure they know will result from eating the cookie (or the steak and mashed potatoes, for that matter). It's natural human difficulty with long term vs short term pleasure (something that you don't have to be nearly as dumb as someone would have to be to be think a twinkle might be health food, as some seem to think is a common belief) to struggle with that.

This is quite different than the other kinds of addictions where one sign of the addiction is typically that the person feels compelled to continue the behavior even after it's no longer pleasurable, just perhaps a relief.

I think there are food addicts or the like (people with binging disorders, for example), although most overweight people don't
fall in that category and I don't believe it's related to specific qualities of specific foods (i.e., sugar) other than for psychological reasons. But that's quite different than what's being claimed by sugar=heroin, and RHachicho's comment about the distinction between being a bad habit vs. addiction seems correct to me.

To leap from "find X pleasurable such that the pleasure weighs in the calculation of whether to engage in the action" to "addicted to X" is bizarre.

daydreams_of_pretty

The government might not be the answer, but we can't just chalk it up to individual responsibility because people are being told misleading messages. Talking about these issues is the start of figuring out some kind of solution.

Every message has a writer and every writer has a bias. Even if there wasn't a bias... there is almost never a consensus about anything... so we'd never be able to agree on any message. It wouldn't surprise me if all this pampering of people's ignorance is why scams are so effective. Once people realize they have to take care of themselves, maybe they'd start.

It's true that every writer has a bias, for the most part anyway.I think that at the very least we need to encourage more (public) discussion so that there are more "writers" with a greater variety of messages. If one group has the only microphone, then people only hear one message.

Most people do realize that they need to take care of themselves. This documentary shows individuals who both realize that they need to take responsibility and actually believe that they are doing so even though it is clear that they are incorrect. When someone thinks that simply switching their full-fat foods to low-fat foods will cure their obesity because that is the message provided to them by "experts" and advertisements, then how can we fault them for not taking responsibility. They honestly believe that they are.

BTW, I don't think that any of us on this thread can claim that we are victims of this messaging, at least not anymore. If you're here discussing it, then you know what's happening and can't blame the lean pockets for tricking you, lol.

tigersword

- From 1977 to 2000 it's estimated Americans have doubled their intake of sugar.

In the 19th century, US sugar consumption doubled....three times. Meaning it increased 8-fold, or four times as much as a mere "doubling".

During this explosion in sugar consumption, US life expectancy increased by about 20 years.

The only reasonable conclusion, then, is that sugar is insanely healthy for you.

Also in the 19th century, well, turn of the 20th century, per capita consumption of sugar in the UK was over 100lbs per person. Where were all the obese Brits in the early 1900s?

wheird

Well this thread is fun.