Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?
Replies
-
It's not true. Actual sugar production is down from 20 years ago. You can do your own research by looking at the BLS and other government sites. This is nothing but a sensationalist piece with an agenda. It is a advertisement, actually.
Sugar production is down because corn is subsidized by the US gov. High fructose corn syrup is cheaper because of subsidies and has dominated the market. Consumption of dietary sugar in all forms has doubled in recent years.0 -
(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)
Too bad no one claimed this. I said that I didn't know anyone who would think that a Lean Pocket was, objectively, health food, or if you prefer akin to fish and vegetables, not that I didn't know anyone who might think it was more healthy than a Hot Pocket. In fact, I specifically said that in the post that Danielle was replying to.
(This seems silly to me.)
It is silly that people think this way, but they still do it. Some people genuinely think that these are health foods, partially because they are offered as the alternative to an "unhealthy" food.
I seriously don't care if everyone decides to just eat lean pockets all of the time. I don't care if every commercial has a dancing lean pocket with happy people catching them in their mouths. I simply have a problem with the fact that we do have a pervasive message in our society that switching regular foods for diet foods is the cure-all of obesity, and that if you fail it's your fault. This message serves the food companies because it maximizes profits, but it hurts us as individuals.
I know you all have beaten it to death, but I don't feel like that is a message at all. I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks that either. Ignorance isn't a free pass. If one can't take the 15 minutes to figure how much they should be eating, why is it the food manufacturers fault?
I don't think that food manufacturers should be expected to do anything other than market their product. Sure, it would be great if they would stop paying for misleading ads/studies/government regulations/etc, but I'm not even going that far. What I am saying is that we should discuss/educate.
I think that all of you are projecting other arguments onto me because all of the people who want to burn the sugar industry to the ground left the thread.
BTW, the reason the lean pocket thing keeps coming up is because it is a direct reference to this particular documentary. There is a woman who tries to help her son lose weight. She switches out his hot pockets for lean pockets and seriously thinks that it's the "healthy" alternative.
Also, wouldn't it be great if the discussion we're having right now were happening on a larger stage where more people could be exposed to it and participate? That's what I'm saying.
Okay...so I agree with you...lol. There was a lot to follow in this thread and maybe I misinterpreted the points you were getting at.
But in reality, switching the son out to lean pockets will help him lose weight if all things remain the same. They are less calories after all.
That's what the lean pockets want you to think.
She did this with all of his food, and the boy actually gained weight. He needs a tool like MFP to help him track his intake and activity. Unfortunately, his mom thought that what she was doing was the right thing. Without someone educating her or at least exposing her to other opinions on the subject, she and her son will continue to make these types of misguided choices. It's sad.
So overconsuming products the mom thought were "healthier" caused the boy to gain weight. In an instance where a person is just trying to lose weight, calories would be the determining factor on whether it is "more healthy" than the Hot Pocket. The Lean Pockets are less calories, therefore, they are healthier for someone trying to lose weight (especially since most of the macros are pretty close other than fat).0 -
i'm surprised people still don't know this.0
-
(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)
Too bad no one claimed this. I said that I didn't know anyone who would think that a Lean Pocket was, objectively, health food, or if you prefer akin to fish and vegetables, not that I didn't know anyone who might think it was more healthy than a Hot Pocket. In fact, I specifically said that in the post that Danielle was replying to.
(This seems silly to me.)
It is silly that people think this way, but they still do it. Some people genuinely think that these are health foods, partially because they are offered as the alternative to an "unhealthy" food.
I seriously don't care if everyone decides to just eat lean pockets all of the time. I don't care if every commercial has a dancing lean pocket with happy people catching them in their mouths. I simply have a problem with the fact that we do have a pervasive message in our society that switching regular foods for diet foods is the cure-all of obesity, and that if you fail it's your fault. This message serves the food companies because it maximizes profits, but it hurts us as individuals.
I know you all have beaten it to death, but I don't feel like that is a message at all. I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks that either. Ignorance isn't a free pass. If one can't take the 15 minutes to figure how much they should be eating, why is it the food manufacturers fault?
I don't think that food manufacturers should be expected to do anything other than market their product. Sure, it would be great if they would stop paying for misleading ads/studies/government regulations/etc, but I'm not even going that far. What I am saying is that we should discuss/educate.
I think that all of you are projecting other arguments onto me because all of the people who want to burn the sugar industry to the ground left the thread.
BTW, the reason the lean pocket thing keeps coming up is because it is a direct reference to this particular documentary. There is a woman who tries to help her son lose weight. She switches out his hot pockets for lean pockets and seriously thinks that it's the "healthy" alternative.
Also, wouldn't it be great if the discussion we're having right now were happening on a larger stage where more people could be exposed to it and participate? That's what I'm saying.
Okay...so I agree with you...lol. There was a lot to follow in this thread and maybe I misinterpreted the points you were getting at.
But in reality, switching the son out to lean pockets will help him lose weight if all things remain the same. They are less calories after all.
That's what the lean pockets want you to think. She did this with all of his food, and the boy actually gained weight. He needs a tool like MFP to help him track his intake and activity. Unfortunately, his mom thought that what she was doing was the right thing. Without someone educating her or at least exposing her to other opinions on the subject, she and her son will continue to make these types of misguided choices. It's sad.
So overconsuming products the mom thought were "healthier" caused the boy to gain weight. In an instance where a person is just trying to lose weight, calories would be the determining factor on whether it is "more healthy" than the Hot Pocket. The Lean Pockets are less calories, therefore, they are healthier for someone trying to lose weight (especially since most of the macros are pretty close other than fat).
That appears to be what happened. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that it's okay to overeat something that is "healthier" than what you were previously eating. You could also just gain weight because you're still eating over maintenance. I mean, if the boy were eating 1000 calories over maintenance and switching to the leaner options brought him down to 300 calorie over maintenance, he'd still gain weight.
*Edited to fix mistake.0 -
With regard to the Yoplait ad, I was using that as an example of how a food company portrays to the public that their food is "healthy" and will help you lose weight if you switch to it. It portrays to the viewer that simply choosing this product over another product will result in weight loss.
Depending on the trade off, it might. Just like eating one cookie instead of 10 or eating cookies once a week instead of twice a day might. I don't see how this is an example of a false ad. It's puffery.
Anyone who claims they think they can lose weight just by adding Yoplait to a terrible diet that contains many more calories than they need is (a) lying, or (b) willfully choosing to fool themselves.
Either way, there's nothing I can do about it but say what I think is true, which I do already.
To suggest this is the fault of anyone but the individual involved is wrong, IMO. At least when I was gaining weight I didn't try to blame others. I knew it was because I was too inactive and eating too much.0 -
BTW, the reason the lean pocket thing keeps coming up is because it is a direct reference to this particular documentary. There is a woman who tries to help her son lose weight. She switches out his hot pockets for lean pockets and seriously thinks that it's the "healthy" alternative.
Yes, I understand that. Lots of non-credible things are shown in documentaries.
How do we get this bigger stage? I don't think spreading fear-mongering in pseudo documentaries is the answer.
Nor do I think there's a shortage of sources of nutritional information, some good, lots crap. If anything, the reason people have trouble sorting through it all has far less to do with commercials and more to do with the promotion of all kinds of ridiculous diets and claims about food. I bet more people think they should lose weight from cleanses or juice fasts or cutting out "gluten" or sugar (whether or not they actually know what gluten is) than think they will by eating Lean Pockets or Yoplait or Special K. I mean the Special K thing was kind of a joke when I was a kid. It's success is that many people possibly class Special K as closer to All-Bran than Frosted Flakes. Eh.0 -
This idea that we are all so educated, intelligent and able to make good decisions on our food is just not realistic.
So basically you're saying that the population is too stupid to do their own research and draw their own conclusions and that we need other people (such as this documentary) to tell us what to think and what decisions to make.
No thank you. I'll do my own research and make my own decisions.
I agree, well said0 -
With regard to the Yoplait ad, I was using that as an example of how a food company portrays to the public that their food is "healthy" and will help you lose weight if you switch to it. It portrays to the viewer that simply choosing this product over another product will result in weight loss.
Depending on the trade off, it might. Just like eating one cookie instead of 10 or eating cookies once a week instead of twice a day might. I don't see how this is an example of a false ad. It's puffery.
Anyone who claims they think they can lose weight just by adding Yoplait to a terrible diet that contains many more calories than they need is (a) lying, or (b) willfully choosing to fool themselves.
Either way, there's nothing I can do about it but say what I think is true, which I do already.
To suggest this is the fault of anyone but the individual involved is wrong, IMO. At least when I was gaining weight I didn't try to blame others. I knew it was because I was too inactive and eating too much.
You just don't understand what I'm saying.
Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.
We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.
It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.
Here is a breakdown of my argument:
1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.
2. People like the food and eat too much of it.
3. Some people become overweight and obese.
4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.
5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)
6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.
7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.
This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.
People should be free to eat whatever they want. People can lie to themselves if it makes them feel better. That's not the point. It's about putting alternative messages out into the community so that people have a greater likelihood of having a better understanding about how to take charge of their health.
Also, I also don't blame others for my weight gain, and none of what I've said applies to me.0 -
As I have stated earlier in this thread, some people lack the intelligence and critical thinking skills necessary to question what they are told by someone whom they perceive to be an authority or expert. It might also shock you to learn that some people are bad at math and many people read at a sixth grade reading level.
These individuals still deserve the opportunity to live a long and healthy life, and as a society we should create an environment where they are exposed to a discussion that counters the misleading messages being purported by the food industry.
Do yourself a huge favor, before you think you understand someone and their needs maybe ask how they make a veggie omelet if they do not have a heat source(stove) to make it. A poor person has more immediate needs then their nutrition in the day in and day out.
This is a random addition to the discussion.
To be clear, I don't think that everyone should or needs to eat veggie omelets to be healthy. I'm also not saying that we should teach people to eat them or how to make them.
It's also not about poor people or rich people. The fact that a person has a low income does not mean that he/she has poor critical thinking skills. There are many reasons that someone could have a low income. At the same time, higher income individuals are not necessarily more intelligent.
Phew...for a second I thought you wanted to make a point, but it seems you want to make several. Best of luck.0 -
You just don't understand what I'm saying.
Quite possible.Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.
I thought that's what my "side" of the conversation was saying. Of course I agree with this. I don't see food companies as the main opponents to this message (they are happy to sell low calorie products to be used by people seeking to create deficits, as well as high calorie products for those who don't care). It's the anti sugar, anti grains, anti "junk food", anti "processed foods", etc. people who claim that the deficit isn't the issue. They are the current heirs of the anti fat people of the '70s and '80s who this woman in the documentary may still be influenced by. Being anti sugar is no different than being anti butter back in the day. (I do get that you are not anti sugar, but you seem to be arguing for the documentary, which is why I'm confused here.)We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.
Okay, but I really don't think that's primarily a message from the food companies. It's popular because people don't want to eat less and don't want to give up the products they enjoy. So they try to sub lower cal versions of those products, just like they wanted to keep eating cookies so ate Snackwells. (I am not saying you can't lose weight and eat cookies. Of course you can.)It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.
I just think you are overstating the role of the food industry in the messages people get and understating personal responsibility and the messages from lots of other places (including medical authorities who continue to say to eat less fat, the diet industry, etc.).Here is a breakdown of my argument:
1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.
Okay. But this doesn't mean that they are really the primary source of the messages about diet. They just use those messages to their own end. That's my point.2. People like the food and eat too much of it.
We agree. That's why you don't need some "addiction" theory to explain people gaining weight.3. Some people become overweight and obese.
4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.
5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)
Sure, although I don't see why it's the wrong thing to do. Under this logic Fage 0% (my current favorite yogurt) would be bad, bad, very bad, because some dumb person might think it magically causes weight loss. Yet I admit that one reason I eat 0% on many occasions is, gasp, fewer calories and macros that better fit my needs. While I could, yes, eat chicken instead for the protein and eat less Fage full fat, why on earth is it bad for me to choose a lower calorie product if I like it? Why is the company bad for meeting the demand for that product?6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.
Again, I think you are overstating the extent that the message is from the companies vs. numerous other sources, as set forth above.
BUT, more importantly, what difference does it make why the people get these ideas? IMO, it's wishful thinking, but what really matters is that it would be better if they understood how weight loss works, we agree on that.
Having seen lots of discussions of these topics on MFP, however, I think the person is going to continue believing what he or she wants to believe in more cases than not. And for those open to learning, the correct information is already available.7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.
I love tracking and think it's a great (and extremely available) tool, but I think you are overly optimistic about how much it would help most people who don't already gravitate to it. It's actually possibly easier for the person who doesn't like the idea to lose by just focusing on serving sizes and food choice. But sure, evangelize for tracking. I'll back you up and say I find it really enjoyable and helpful.
But I still don't think that someone who lives off Lean Pockets in unlimited quantities can really, in good faith, think she is "doing everything right." Having been fat and all, I think most fat people know deep down why they gained weight and aren't losing. Being fat doesn't make you dumb.This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.
So have a discussion. Who is stopping you? I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas.0 -
It's biased though. Just like most food documentaries are. Peer reviewed clinical studies are a better bet.I really want to see this. I love nutrition documentaries!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
- Despite fitness club memberships more than doubling across the U.S. between 1980 and 2000, obesity rates doubled.
They might be looking at this one upside down, because it makes perfect sense. After all, as more people get bigger, they will find themselves in need of a gym membership.0 -
You just don't understand what I'm saying.
Quite possible.Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.
I thought that's what my "side" of the conversation was saying. Of course I agree with this. I don't see food companies as the main opponents to this message (they are happy to sell low calorie products to be used by people seeking to create deficits, as well as high calorie products for those who don't care). It's the anti sugar, anti grains, anti "junk food", anti "processed foods", etc. people who claim that the deficit isn't the issue. They are the current heirs of the anti fat people of the '70s and '80s who this woman in the documentary may still be influenced by. Being anti sugar is no different than being anti butter back in the day. (I do get that you are not anti sugar, but you seem to be arguing for the documentary, which is why I'm confused here.)We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.
Okay, but I really don't think that's primarily a message from the food companies. It's popular because people don't want to eat less and don't want to give up the products they enjoy. So they try to sub lower cal versions of those products, just like they wanted to keep eating cookies so ate Snackwells. (I am not saying you can't lose weight and eat cookies. Of course you can.)It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.
I just think you are overstating the role of the food industry in the messages people get and understating personal responsibility and the messages from lots of other places (including medical authorities who continue to say to eat less fat, the diet industry, etc.).Here is a breakdown of my argument:
1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.
Okay. But this doesn't mean that they are really the primary source of the messages about diet. They just use those messages to their own end. That's my point.2. People like the food and eat too much of it.
We agree. That's why you don't need some "addiction" theory to explain people gaining weight.3. Some people become overweight and obese.
4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.
5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)
Sure, although I don't see why it's the wrong thing to do. Under this logic Fage 0% (my current favorite yogurt) would be bad, bad, very bad, because some dumb person might think it magically causes weight loss. Yet I admit that one reason I eat 0% on many occasions is, gasp, fewer calories and macros that better fit my needs. While I could, yes, eat chicken instead for the protein and eat less Fage full fat, why on earth is it bad for me to choose a lower calorie product if I like it? Why is the company bad for meeting the demand for that product?6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.
Again, I think you are overstating the extent that the message is from the companies vs. numerous other sources, as set forth above.
BUT, more importantly, what difference does it make why the people get these ideas? IMO, it's wishful thinking, but what really matters is that it would be better if they understood how weight loss works, we agree on that.
Having seen lots of discussions of these topics on MFP, however, I think the person is going to continue believing what he or she wants to believe in more cases than not. And for those open to learning, the correct information is already available.7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.
I love tracking and think it's a great (and extremely available) tool, but I think you are overly optimistic about how much it would help most people who don't already gravitate to it. It's actually possibly easier for the person who doesn't like the idea to lose by just focusing on serving sizes and food choice. But sure, evangelize for tracking. I'll back you up and say I find it really enjoyable and helpful.
But I still don't think that someone who lives off Lean Pockets in unlimited quantities can really, in good faith, think she is "doing everything right." Having been fat and all, I think most fat people know deep down why they gained weight and aren't losing. Being fat doesn't make you dumb.This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.
So have a discussion. Who is stopping you? I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas.
I didn't defend the message of the documentary. I said that these types of movies can lead to a discussion about what's happening. Despite the bias and unsupported conclusions of the film, it does have some relevant data and observations.
I'm also not saying that telling people to track will work. I'm just saying that looking at these types of issues and offering additional viewpoints and solutions can help people better help themselves.
With regard to the dead horse that is food advertising, the industry wants your money and will tell you what you want to hear to get it. It's simple, really. That's how it works. These companies do not want people to stop eating their products. If I decide that I want to lose weight and cut out oreos, then Nabisco loses money. Nabisco wants me to believe that reduced-fat oreos are the answer to my dilemma. When every food company does this and no one counters that message, then we have people who eat like this:
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
Some people who eat this way will lose or maintain, but others will not. When those people fail, they're told that it's their fault, and the problem continues.
ETA: I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat those foods. I'm saying that there are people who are eating this type of diet so that they can lose weight because that's what marketing tells them to do. When they aren't successful, they get discouraged and think that something must be inherently wrong with them because nothing works for them.0 -
You just don't understand what I'm saying.
Quite possible.Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.
I thought that's what my "side" of the conversation was saying. Of course I agree with this. I don't see food companies as the main opponents to this message (they are happy to sell low calorie products to be used by people seeking to create deficits, as well as high calorie products for those who don't care). It's the anti sugar, anti grains, anti "junk food", anti "processed foods", etc. people who claim that the deficit isn't the issue. They are the current heirs of the anti fat people of the '70s and '80s who this woman in the documentary may still be influenced by. Being anti sugar is no different than being anti butter back in the day. (I do get that you are not anti sugar, but you seem to be arguing for the documentary, which is why I'm confused here.)We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.
Okay, but I really don't think that's primarily a message from the food companies. It's popular because people don't want to eat less and don't want to give up the products they enjoy. So they try to sub lower cal versions of those products, just like they wanted to keep eating cookies so ate Snackwells. (I am not saying you can't lose weight and eat cookies. Of course you can.)It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.
I just think you are overstating the role of the food industry in the messages people get and understating personal responsibility and the messages from lots of other places (including medical authorities who continue to say to eat less fat, the diet industry, etc.).Here is a breakdown of my argument:
1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.
Okay. But this doesn't mean that they are really the primary source of the messages about diet. They just use those messages to their own end. That's my point.2. People like the food and eat too much of it.
We agree. That's why you don't need some "addiction" theory to explain people gaining weight.3. Some people become overweight and obese.
4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.
5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)
Sure, although I don't see why it's the wrong thing to do. Under this logic Fage 0% (my current favorite yogurt) would be bad, bad, very bad, because some dumb person might think it magically causes weight loss. Yet I admit that one reason I eat 0% on many occasions is, gasp, fewer calories and macros that better fit my needs. While I could, yes, eat chicken instead for the protein and eat less Fage full fat, why on earth is it bad for me to choose a lower calorie product if I like it? Why is the company bad for meeting the demand for that product?6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.
Again, I think you are overstating the extent that the message is from the companies vs. numerous other sources, as set forth above.
BUT, more importantly, what difference does it make why the people get these ideas? IMO, it's wishful thinking, but what really matters is that it would be better if they understood how weight loss works, we agree on that.
Having seen lots of discussions of these topics on MFP, however, I think the person is going to continue believing what he or she wants to believe in more cases than not. And for those open to learning, the correct information is already available.7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.
I love tracking and think it's a great (and extremely available) tool, but I think you are overly optimistic about how much it would help most people who don't already gravitate to it. It's actually possibly easier for the person who doesn't like the idea to lose by just focusing on serving sizes and food choice. But sure, evangelize for tracking. I'll back you up and say I find it really enjoyable and helpful.
But I still don't think that someone who lives off Lean Pockets in unlimited quantities can really, in good faith, think she is "doing everything right." Having been fat and all, I think most fat people know deep down why they gained weight and aren't losing. Being fat doesn't make you dumb.This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.
So have a discussion. Who is stopping you? I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas.
I didn't defend the message of the documentary. I said that these types of movies can lead to a discussion about what's happening. Despite the bias and unsupported conclusions of the film, it does have some relevant data and observations.
I'm also not saying that telling people to track will work. I'm just saying that looking at these types of issues and offering additional viewpoints and solutions can help people better help themselves.
With regard to the dead horse that is food advertising, the industry wants your money and will tell you what you want to hear to get it. It's simple, really. That's how it works. These companies do not want people to stop eating their products. If I decide that I want to lose weight and cut out oreos, then Nabisco loses money. Nabisco wants me to believe that reduced-fat oreos are the answer to my dilemma. When every food company does this and no one counters that message, then we have people who eat like this:
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
Some people who eat this way will lose or maintain, but others will not. When those people fail, they're told that it's their fault, and the problem continues.
ETA: I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat those foods. I'm saying that there are people who are eating this type of diet so that they can lose weight because that's what marketing tells them to do. When they aren't successful, they get discouraged and think that something must be inherently wrong with them because nothing works for them.
Danielle, have you met the choir? When people aren't successful some quit and some seek answers. Maybe they find a registered dietician, or do more reading about their diet. Whatever the successful people do to find their success it probably doesn't involve giving a rat's *kitten* about the food companies. And whoever is telling the people who fail it is their fault, it is only their fault if they listen. Not sure who you think is telling people it is their fault. You mentioned society, but there was several posts ago. At any rate, I'm sort of getting a hankering for pop tarts so thanks. OMG I'm listening to someone else.. . . . .it is your fault!!!!!!0 -
lemurcat 12: "... I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas... "
While sugar doesn't equal heroin in addictive power, it is still quite addictive. From the Wiki article on "Sugar Addiction":
"Sugar has been shown to induce ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc).[1][2] Consequently, regular consumption of large quantities of sugar can result in a state of dependence on sugar.[1][2]"
Because science. :bigsmile:0 -
You just don't understand what I'm saying.
Quite possible.Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.
I thought that's what my "side" of the conversation was saying. Of course I agree with this. I don't see food companies as the main opponents to this message (they are happy to sell low calorie products to be used by people seeking to create deficits, as well as high calorie products for those who don't care). It's the anti sugar, anti grains, anti "junk food", anti "processed foods", etc. people who claim that the deficit isn't the issue. They are the current heirs of the anti fat people of the '70s and '80s who this woman in the documentary may still be influenced by. Being anti sugar is no different than being anti butter back in the day. (I do get that you are not anti sugar, but you seem to be arguing for the documentary, which is why I'm confused here.)We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.
Okay, but I really don't think that's primarily a message from the food companies. It's popular because people don't want to eat less and don't want to give up the products they enjoy. So they try to sub lower cal versions of those products, just like they wanted to keep eating cookies so ate Snackwells. (I am not saying you can't lose weight and eat cookies. Of course you can.)It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.
I just think you are overstating the role of the food industry in the messages people get and understating personal responsibility and the messages from lots of other places (including medical authorities who continue to say to eat less fat, the diet industry, etc.).Here is a breakdown of my argument:
1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.
Okay. But this doesn't mean that they are really the primary source of the messages about diet. They just use those messages to their own end. That's my point.2. People like the food and eat too much of it.
We agree. That's why you don't need some "addiction" theory to explain people gaining weight.3. Some people become overweight and obese.
4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.
5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)
Sure, although I don't see why it's the wrong thing to do. Under this logic Fage 0% (my current favorite yogurt) would be bad, bad, very bad, because some dumb person might think it magically causes weight loss. Yet I admit that one reason I eat 0% on many occasions is, gasp, fewer calories and macros that better fit my needs. While I could, yes, eat chicken instead for the protein and eat less Fage full fat, why on earth is it bad for me to choose a lower calorie product if I like it? Why is the company bad for meeting the demand for that product?6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.
Again, I think you are overstating the extent that the message is from the companies vs. numerous other sources, as set forth above.
BUT, more importantly, what difference does it make why the people get these ideas? IMO, it's wishful thinking, but what really matters is that it would be better if they understood how weight loss works, we agree on that.
Having seen lots of discussions of these topics on MFP, however, I think the person is going to continue believing what he or she wants to believe in more cases than not. And for those open to learning, the correct information is already available.7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.
I love tracking and think it's a great (and extremely available) tool, but I think you are overly optimistic about how much it would help most people who don't already gravitate to it. It's actually possibly easier for the person who doesn't like the idea to lose by just focusing on serving sizes and food choice. But sure, evangelize for tracking. I'll back you up and say I find it really enjoyable and helpful.
But I still don't think that someone who lives off Lean Pockets in unlimited quantities can really, in good faith, think she is "doing everything right." Having been fat and all, I think most fat people know deep down why they gained weight and aren't losing. Being fat doesn't make you dumb.This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.
So have a discussion. Who is stopping you? I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas.
I didn't defend the message of the documentary. I said that these types of movies can lead to a discussion about what's happening. Despite the bias and unsupported conclusions of the film, it does have some relevant data and observations.
I'm also not saying that telling people to track will work. I'm just saying that looking at these types of issues and offering additional viewpoints and solutions can help people better help themselves.
With regard to the dead horse that is food advertising, the industry wants your money and will tell you what you want to hear to get it. It's simple, really. That's how it works. These companies do not want people to stop eating their products. If I decide that I want to lose weight and cut out oreos, then Nabisco loses money. Nabisco wants me to believe that reduced-fat oreos are the answer to my dilemma. When every food company does this and no one counters that message, then we have people who eat like this:
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
Some people who eat this way will lose or maintain, but others will not. When those people fail, they're told that it's their fault, and the problem continues.
ETA: I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat those foods. I'm saying that there are people who are eating this type of diet so that they can lose weight because that's what marketing tells them to do. When they aren't successful, they get discouraged and think that something must be inherently wrong with them because nothing works for them.
Danielle, have you met the choir? When people aren't successful some quit and some seek answers. Maybe they find a registered dietician, or do more reading about their diet. Whatever the successful people do to find their success it probably doesn't involve giving a rat's *kitten* about the food companies. And whoever is telling the people who fail it is their fault, it is only their fault if they listen. Not sure who you think is telling people it is their fault. You mentioned society, but there was several posts ago. At any rate, I'm sort of getting a hankering for pop tarts so thanks. OMG I'm listening to someone else.. . . . .it is your fault!!!!!!
I'm not trying to tell people what to do, especially not you guys. I think that I've already made myself clear, and I'm tired of this thread, lol.
If you want a pop tart, then fit it into your day. One pop tart isn't going to break you. 0 -
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
A lot of MFP food diaries look like this.
Yep. The owners of those diaries will lose weight because they created a deficit, not because they ate diet food. I'm not sure why people keep arguing with me about this. It's kind of the whole point of this site.
I'm focused on the importance of a discussion and more education regarding nutrition. I'm also not sure why people are against a public discourse since I'm not specifying a specific message or trying to coerce people. I'm also not saying that I'm an expert who want to show everyone the truth. I just think that we need an active discussion as a community.
At this point I'm bored, though. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. If something new comes up, them maybe I'll have something else to say. Maybe not. I think I've already posted too much today as it is. :yawn:0 -
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
A lot of MFP food diaries look like this.
Yep. The owners of those diaries will lose weight because they created a deficit, not because they ate diet food. I'm not sure why people keep arguing with me about this. It's kind of the whole point of this site.
I'm focused on the importance of a discussion and more education regarding nutrition. I'm also not sure why people are against a public discourse since I'm not specifying a specific message or trying to coerce people. I'm also not saying that I'm an expert who want to show everyone the truth. I just think that we need an active discussion as a community.
At this point I'm bored, though. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. If something new comes up, them maybe I'll have something else to say. Maybe not. I think I've already posted too much today as it is. :yawn:
I'm not arguing. I think you've been stating your case quite well, although I don't agree with all of it. You're quite eloquent and tenacious in the face of assholicness.
Personally, the food listed above wouldn't do it for me at all. I'd rather be fat than eat like that. If that's how MFPers stay thin, okay. Like I said, it's not for me. I'll take real food, cook it, eat it and wear it on my *kitten* if I have to.
As for sugar, I have a love/hate with it. I love the cheap thrill of eating it with its flavor punch and euphoria producing characteristics. I hate how it makes me feel and look.
Agree :drinker:0 -
Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow0 -
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
A lot of MFP food diaries look like this.
Yep. The owners of those diaries will lose weight because they created a deficit, not because they ate diet food. I'm not sure why people keep arguing with me about this. It's kind of the whole point of this site.
I'm focused on the importance of a discussion and more education regarding nutrition. I'm also not sure why people are against a public discourse since I'm not specifying a specific message or trying to coerce people. I'm also not saying that I'm an expert who want to show everyone the truth. I just think that we need an active discussion as a community.
At this point I'm bored, though. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. If something new comes up, them maybe I'll have something else to say. Maybe not. I think I've already posted too much today as it is. :yawn:
I guess I'm puzzled because you seem to be arguing with points no one made, at least no one you chose to argue with.
No one has opposed public discourse, for example.
Also, I am sure plenty of people start out eating like you listed above, because calories. IMO, that would not be sustainable for me (because I hate basically everything listed and it looks not filling), but it would probably be low calorie enough if that's what you chose. It looks if anything like too few calories without me caring enough to do the math.
Where we differ is that I don't think anyone chooses to eat like that because they are brainwashed by commercials and think it's the best way to lose. Someone eating like that has almost surely read all about calories in women's mags or the like, at least, and is concerned with calories. Said person also probably believes that it would be healthier to eat fruits and veggies and meat or other homemade meals, but doesn't want to due to time or taste preferences (the same people on MFP who eat that way say they don't have time to cook or hate veggies). Back in the day people didn't feel they had much choice about how to eat and now we do, which is good but freedom always has a side that involves some not dealing with it well.
So I think you are giving too much power to the corporations and too little agency to the dieters in question (who might be right when they say they are happier eating that way than what you and I might prefer).
Like you, I'm bored with this and increasingly confused as to what the argument is even about. I was mainly here for the sugar bashing and gifs, after all.0 -
Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar
A lot of MFP food diaries look like this.
Yep. The owners of those diaries will lose weight because they created a deficit, not because they ate diet food. I'm not sure why people keep arguing with me about this. It's kind of the whole point of this site.
I'm focused on the importance of a discussion and more education regarding nutrition. I'm also not sure why people are against a public discourse since I'm not specifying a specific message or trying to coerce people. I'm also not saying that I'm an expert who want to show everyone the truth. I just think that we need an active discussion as a community.
At this point I'm bored, though. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. If something new comes up, them maybe I'll have something else to say. Maybe not. I think I've already posted too much today as it is. :yawn:
I'm not arguing. I think you've been stating your case quite well, although I don't agree with all of it. You're quite eloquent and tenacious in the face of assholicness.
Personally, the food listed above wouldn't do it for me at all. I'd rather be fat than eat like that. If that's how MFPers stay thin, okay. Like I said, it's not for me. I'll take real food, cook it, eat it and wear it on my *kitten* if I have to.
As for sugar, I have a love/hate with it. I love the cheap thrill of eating it with its flavor punch and euphoria producing characteristics. I hate how it makes me feel and look.
Hmm. I neither get euphoria or cheap thrills from sugar, although I enjoy some ice cream or homemade apple pie as much as anyone, nor have any problem with how it makes me feel, unless I were to eat much higher quantities of it and less of other foods. As for gaining weight, sugar wasn't really my main issues. It was being sedentary enough to end up with a low TDEE and fancy restaurant meals with multiple courses, lots of Indian takeout, and a lack of portion control plus too much butter and oil on top of that. Once I'd resigned myself to being fat I did drown my sorrows it a pint of ice cream on occasion or add in a cookie or dessert more often than not, but those weren't the drivers and moderation with them as well as everything else was the answer.
And it sure wasn't hidden sugar!0 -
whenever someone in my office makes one of those lean cuisine-type meals, the whole building smells of MSG. it's got to be the only thing making them edible.
How on earth can you smell MSG which is odorless and tasteless? Oh, it is also natural since it is extracted from fermenting seaweed or sugar beets with tapioca or cereal grains.0 -
From the ADA:
Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=db-slabnav#sthash.zMNRGiPD.dpu
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
From the ADA:
Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=db-slabnav#sthash.zMNRGiPD.dpu
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
For more on the genetic risk factors and the environmental ones, complete with links to all of the studies including peer reviewed ones, go here: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php It goes more into why being overweight isn't the ONLY thing that will cause diabetes but just one of several risk factors, albeit the most common after genetics.0 -
Thanks. I know that being overweight is a risk factor, but also know of many leaner people who have diabetes. In fact one of our trainers (male) is type 1. Can't tell by how fit he looks.
From the ADA:
Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=db-slabnav#sthash.zMNRGiPD.dpu
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
For more on the genetic risk factors and the environmental ones, complete with links to all of the studies including peer reviewed ones, go here: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php It goes more into why being overweight isn't the ONLY thing that will cause diabetes but just one of several risk factors, albeit the most common after genetics.
Thanks again for the link. I'll check it out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
For more on the genetic risk factors and the environmental ones, complete with links to all of the studies including peer reviewed ones, go here: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php It goes more into why being overweight isn't the ONLY thing that will cause diabetes but just one of several risk factors, albeit the most common after genetics.Thanks. I know that being overweight is a risk factor, but also know of many leaner people who have diabetes. In fact one of our trainers (male) is type 1. Can't tell by how fit he looks.
Thanks again for the link. I'll check it out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It was a bit of an eye opener. I have been overweight most of my adult life but only went over the line into T2D in the last year. I was wondering what tripped the trigger and it makes more sense now. I have no genetic risk, I do have weight risk, and I have been on antidepressants for the last 12 years which is another risk factor. My doctor, who is a certified diabetic educator, told me that my weight and SSRI use put me on the border but the final straw was the stress on my whole body system when I unknowingly had chronic microcytic and iron deficiency anemia for about a year before I finally sought treatment (no insurance so no Dr. visits).0 -
First off, please discuss the topic, not each other. Derailing an interesting discussion with personal characterizations or cursing is...just so low.
I actually watched the FED UP film. It made me cringe for the wrong reasons. I do think that white sugar is more to blame in the obesity epidemic, but the film was a very weak argument in that debate.
Here's my view of the movie:
1. They cut out most of Dr. Lustig's whole chemical explanation why sugar might have more devious effects on our brains and tummies, than we previously knew. This was the primary science-y part of the film. Sadly the bigger audience missed that in this film.
For those who are interested in hearing that explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
2. The stories of the obese kids were turning on all emotional buttons, but lacked any rational connection to the main claim in the film: That sugar is the culprit for their obesity. They all said the same thing, they are eating too much of EVERYTHING. Even the 12 years old girl who was "working out" 4 times a week. Next thing we know, we see her order cheeseburger at school. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't get the impression they were even trying to loose weight with a deficit. I was wondering after the film ended what was their real intake.
- So blaming sugar with those cases, only made me feel a bit manipulated. Poor kids!
3. Yes, the food corps are in the business to make money and will do so in any manner at their disposal. Do their sometimes evil practices take away our responsibility as individuals ? Even if they mislabel, execute dubious disappearing of ingredients due to low quantity in portion size, misleadingly market products as "sugar-free, 0% fat", rename sugar into other substances etc. I truly believe the individual is responsible of his or her lifestyle. No-one forced me to buy and overeat over a long period of time. I like the choice of freedom, even though I know freedom can be one of the toughest things to do right.
4. Overall, the film put a lot of stuff out there, but it was mostly OPINIONS. As someone noted above in the 14 previous pages, the quantity of gym membership has grown a lot, cause it's a pretty modern phenomenon. Twisting facts in order to base a weak claim, is begging for the pro-sugar camp to feast in inconsistencies and what-not.
Things the film didn't address:
a) It's the perfect storm for obesity. As someone mentioned, we as humans, move so much less than we used to. The boom of technology and consumer appliances make keeping a household very easy compared to just 110 years ago. No freezerfridge, no washing or dish washer machine. Those three machines alone is a total revolution in how we are living. Try washing your clothes by hand, it's a pretty good workout!
b) Spoilt for choice. Combined with moving drastically less, the abundance of fats and sugar is unprecedented in such a large, global scale. Yes, the Romans had their gluttony, but they had eating disorder too! ...they threw up. And the patrician elite were a very small number. Never before in history of mankind have we had such easy, "cheap" food so readily available to so many people.
c) Primal brain, modern abundance. Unluckily for us, our brains have not developed in the same pace as the food industry. I am, as a human being, riddled with flaws and idiosyncracies. Even though I rationally know eating that extra portion of my fav italian icecream isn't a smart thing to do. My reptile brain sometimes shouts, sometimes whispers: "You want it, do it".
d) Seeing the consequences. Cause when it comes down to overeating, the effects are sadly unclear in the moment of sin. It resurfaces as a little bit tighter pant size or difficulty bending down or going up a stair...maybe weeks or months after overindulging. No college degree or parent taught me how to say "no" to myself.
So what are we to do? There is undoubtedly an obesity epidemic. Although the scaremongers fail to mention the BMI was changed not so long ago, so more people are now "obese".
http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/
I happen to live in La-la-land. It's called Scandinavia. Here we have almost free medical, the government regulates A LOT, including spending billions of dollars in educating the citizens to live healthily. The regular guy doesn't even need health insurance, cause it's free anyway. The government has tried all tactics there is between scaring, TV-commercials, national campaigns and little leaflets, which no-one reads.
Does it work? NO.
Increasingly there are serious faces on the TV talking about how we need to eat in moderation to stay healthy. Did the health argument matter to me when I smoked a pack a day? I couldn't care less. People only really start to care about their health, when some body part started to fail. Even then the odds are not that good for a permanent lifestyle change. Yes, there are lung cancer patients who refuses to quit smoking.
Ok, to sum it up. None of the measures that governments, health departments, WHO do are efficient in making people change their minds about lifestyle. Basically it's a waste of time, energy and money. Maybe it's time to think COMPLETELY out of the box?
IncentiveThe only thing that works to motivate the human being and corporations to change something is incentive. Away with the scare-tactics and educational down the drain leaflets. The most powerful tool I use when I need to change a behavior I know is bad, is to focus on what I will win by changing. I think most of us are this way, cause there's an inherent conservatism "why change what's working" attitude.
As long as people don't instantly and miraculously gain the box of cookies on their butt after swallowing, making millions of people change their mind is impossible. To my mind there is no doubt that orange is not the new "black", obesity is. (not trying to offend anyone). When I grew up I knew only one person who was morbidly obese. Where I live the general population used to skinny. Now, I can't go anywhere on a daily basis without seeing someone in the street who clearly is so heavy, they have a hard time walking. It's hard for them.
Win money loosing weight. So what do I propose? Make it profitable to be within normal weight. Yes, this is a madwoman's ranting thoughts. But it struck me after reading this long and very heated thread yesterday. None of you were discussing the gravity of the situation. Our governments, which are already in deficit, will possibly go bankrupt if the numbers of obesity related diseases keeps growing at the present rate. Already you are asked by the insurance companies if you're a smoker or other lifestyle factors. It's very touchy and I think many will be mad at me.
Giving people real money benefit to stay within normal weight range. Give them a really good reason to NOT overeat. They will educate themselves to get that extra money. They will demand true "diet" products that WORK in their supermarkets. They will demand accountability from the food industry, simply by refusing to buy foods that doesn't work.
How would this economical gift be given and what are the rules, I don't know. But I would think it should be an annual or bi-annual affair. A weigh-in at a doctor's office maybe? Maybe insurance companies will start to give lower price for their services if someone is not obese? I would think that a lot of people wouldn't mind paying less to the insurance company if that was an option . Maybe the government should start giving a substantial sum of money to people who are within healthy weight ranges? That money would be spent on health care anyway...
I know, there are a lot of issues with these ideas. And I'm not trying to demonize fat people. I only wanted to make it more appealing to loose weight. Make it a positive choice. We all know how hard it is to change to a slimmer lifestyle. There isn't a day in the forums where there's a thread about someone not loosing weight and the reply is: "do you weigh everything you eat?" You need to REALLY want it, we all know that.
Ok, now I aired some thoughts...shoot me down, lol.
Edit: If there is a medical condition that changes the game. I'm only talking about overeating as a lifestyle choice. Added formatting for easier read.0 -
We have people who are taking personal responsibility but doing the wrong thing.
They are "doing the wrong thing' because they are looking for a short cut.
That isn't the same as "taking personal responsibility".
Bottom line - most overweight people are more comfortable being overweight than they are doing what is needed to not be overweight. And that's ok, it's their choice.0 -
No one has opposed public discourse, for example.
Yeah.
I think a few folks have reached the "I just want to see myself in print" stage of the conversation.0 -
Maybe it's time to think COMPLETELY out of the box?
IncentiveThe only thing that works to motivate the human being and corporations to change something is incentive. Away with the scare-tactics and educational down the drain leaflets. The most powerful tool I use when I need to change a behavior I know is bad, is to focus on what I will win by changing. I think most of us are this way, cause there's an inherent conservatism "why change what's working" attitude.
As long as people don't instantly and miraculously gain the box of cookies on their butt after swallowing, making millions of people change their mind is impossible. To my mind there is no doubt that orange is not the new "black", obesity is. (not trying to offend anyone). When I grew up I knew only one person who was morbidly obese. Where I live the general population used to skinny. Now, I can't go anywhere on a daily basis without seeing someone in the street who clearly is so heavy, they have a hard time walking. It's hard for them.
Win money loosing weight. So what do I propose? Make it profitable to be within normal weight. Yes, this is a madwoman's ranting thoughts. But it struck me after reading this long and very heated thread yesterday. None of you were discussing the gravity of the situation. Our governments, which are already in deficit, will possibly go bankrupt if the numbers of obesity related diseases keeps growing at the present rate. Already you are asked by the insurance companies if you're a smoker or other lifestyle factors. It's very touchy and I think many will be mad at me.
Giving people real money benefit to stay within normal weight range. Give them a really good reason to NOT overeat. They will educate themselves to get that extra money. They will demand true "diet" products that WORK in their supermarkets. They will demand accountability from the food industry, simply by refusing to buy foods that doesn't work.
How would this economical gift be given and what are the rules, I don't know. But I would think it should be an annual or bi-annual affair. A weigh-in at a doctor's office maybe? Maybe insurance companies will start to give lower price for their services if someone is not obese? I would think that a lot of people wouldn't mind paying less to the insurance company if that was an option . Maybe the government should start giving a substantial sum of money to people who are within healthy weight ranges? That money would be spent on health care anyway...
I know, there are a lot of issues with these ideas. And I'm not trying to demonize fat people. I only wanted to make it more appealing to loose weight. Make it a positive choice. We all know how hard it is to change to a slimmer lifestyle. There isn't a day in the forums where there's a thread about someone not loosing weight and the reply is: "do you weigh everything you eat?" You need to REALLY want it, we all know that.
Ok, now I aired some thoughts...shoot me down, lol.
Edit: If there is a medical condition that changes the game. I'm only talking about overeating as a lifestyle choice. Added formatting for easier read.
A lot of companies are doing incentive-based fitness programs for their employees. Walgreens and perhaps some other corporations give rewards to customers for things like reaching step goals. I think incentives is a very positive and realistic way to go towards combating obesity.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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