Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?
Replies
-
For those that say they don't need the government, good for you! But the government has absolutely had an impact on what is available to eat and what our perceptions of "healthy" is. Typical American idealism that you can live on your own island and there is no influence around you and everyone has 'equal opportunity'. Blah blah blah. But you probably work out like crazy, feel starved on your low calorie diet when you need to lose weight because you simply believe that a calorie is just energy and it doesn't come from a food source that has biochemical impact on your body -- can give satiety or not, impact a hormone, improve performance. Calorie in calorie out end of story?
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid but there are 8 year old kids with allowance money trying to decide between the blue or red Slushie and it's "fine" because the FDA approved the red dye, the government subsidized the corn that made the HFCS that's perfectly safe because it's low fat.
You can't trust the government or big corp because they are often one and the same when it comes to food politics.
Some people can't handle alcohol. There are over 50,000 people admitted to the hospital for alcohol overdose every year and 23,000 alcohol related deaths. In 2002, over 2 million binge drinkers were age 12-17. We should ban alcohol because of all the reasons you stated above. Biochemical impact, hormones, can't trust government, can't trust companies, etc.0 -
For those that say they don't need the government, good for you! But the government has absolutely had an impact on what is available to eat and what our perceptions of "healthy" is. Typical American idealism that you can live on your own island and there is no influence around you and everyone has 'equal opportunity'. Blah blah blah. But you probably work out like crazy, feel starved on your low calorie diet when you need to lose weight because you simply believe that a calorie is just energy and it doesn't come from a food source that has biochemical impact on your body -- can give satiety or not, impact a hormone, improve performance. Calorie in calorie out end of story?
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid but there are 8 year old kids with allowance money trying to decide between the blue or red Slushie and it's "fine" because the FDA approved the red dye, the government subsidized the corn that made the HFCS that's perfectly safe because it's low fat.
You can't trust the government or big corp because they are often one and the same when it comes to food politics.
Amen. Government food guides are often what various agriculture departments suggest and are highly influenced by politics.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
I'm not judging though. if you want to eat all the calories and then be huge im no one to judge. I was that way for years. It was my choice. And those where happy years. They left their marks on me sure. But you don't see me crying about companies poisoning me. I didn't get fat from eating sugar. I got fat from eating lots and lots and LOTS of food. It was totally delicious. I regret none of it. But I'm taking a new direction now for the sake of my health and longevity. And that's all there is to it. That's MY personal responsibility. I am responsible for my ill health before. And i am responsible for my health now. End of Discussion.0 -
sugar is not addictive? It is often compared to going through heroine addiction. Have you gone sugar free ever? It is very hard because its in everything. Its in chicken you buy from perdue or other chicken sellers. Its in cereal, bread, all condiments, drinks, juices, everything or its in code as sugar free as maltose dextrose fructose xylitol alcohol sugar cane sugar sucrose high fructose corn syrup corn syrup and more names that people dont even know or recognize as sugar. But yet thats no problem?I don't buy that the corporation has no culpability when they are willingly presenting and advertising food to consumers they know is addictive and not healthy.
It's not addictive, but as far as that goes, no one is in an uproar about companies that make and sell alcohol these days.
As for "not healthy" -- who decides? Lots of things that consumers want are unhealthy if consumed in excess quantities. Yet no one blames, say, TV manufacturers for people watching too much TV.This idea that we are all so educated, intelligent and able to make good decisions on our food is just not realistic.
Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.0 -
sugar is not addictive? It is often compared to going through heroine addiction. Have you gone sugar free ever? It is very hard because its in everything. Its in chicken you buy from perdue or other chicken sellers. Its in cereal, bread, all condiments, drinks, juices, everything or its in code as sugar free as maltose dextrose fructose xylitol alcohol sugar cane sugar sucrose high fructose corn syrup corn syrup and more names that people dont even know or recognize as sugar. But yet thats no problem?I don't buy that the corporation has no culpability when they are willingly presenting and advertising food to consumers they know is addictive and not healthy.
It's not addictive, but as far as that goes, no one is in an uproar about companies that make and sell alcohol these days.
As for "not healthy" -- who decides? Lots of things that consumers want are unhealthy if consumed in excess quantities. Yet no one blames, say, TV manufacturers for people watching too much TV.This idea that we are all so educated, intelligent and able to make good decisions on our food is just not realistic.
Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.
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.0 -
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, Volume 2, Issue 8, Page e13, August 2014
<Previous Article|Next Article>
doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70123-8Cite or Link Using DOI
Published Online: 09 June 2014
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Fed Up
Aaron van Dorn
Fed Up is a documentary with two different, somewhat contradictory, influences. The first is the agitprop of films like Bowling for Columbine, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and Super Size Me, in which the cause is so righteous and so clear to all right-thinking people that if a few suckerpunches get thrown and a few corners get cut, the filmakers can be forgiven. However, director Stephanie Soechtig has her roots in the world of network magazine shows like 20/20 and Primetime Live—a world of talking-head segments and narration over video clips of people with their heads carefully out of frame—a style designed to lend the reporting an air objectivity and gravitas. The film is also narrated and produced by Katie Couric, a veteran of these kinds of programmes. These two influences sit uncomfortably together, and it creates an awkward mishmash of a film.
The film alternates between three primary modes: interviews with various experts, politicians, and advocates who lay out their arguments in bite-sized chunks with no editorial discussion; flashy, graphics-intensive illustrations of everything from the sugar content of various foods to animated clips of metabolic processes; and finally, we follow the stories of several children, both in traditional interview segments and in clips of weepy, self-recorded video halfway between a reality-television confessional and a YouTube clip, which feels particularly crass and exploitative.
The film's central message is sugar. The argument is that US dietary suggestions—already watered down from their original scope by corporations—emphasise reduction of fat intake, but the corporations have reacted by introducing extra sugar into packaged food to make the newly fat-reduced and fat-free foods palatable. The film also strongly argues that exercise and diet, even when done properly, are not enough to combat obesity. The only counter argument to the film's thesis is presented by a few brief interviews with either industry public-relations flacks or with scientists who are derided for accepting funding from the food industry. The rest of the time, the film is full of interviews with scientists, politicians (Senator Tom Harkin and former President Bill Clinton), and public health advocates who all hammer home the same messages with the unvarying subtlety of a jackhammer: eat less sugar, soda companies are like tobacco companies, and the government could solve the problem if it wanted to. The film's numerous swipes at Michelle Obama—not a politician, and not part of the government—for not being hard enough on corporations are especially egregious.
The film presents this argument with all the zealotry of a recent convert, but it doesn't really allow for any other perspective. The argument is also exclusively focused on the USA, without taking into account that obesity rates have increased worldwide, not just in the USA where corporations and agribusiness benefit from federal tax policy. If US agriculture policy is responsible for the explosion in obesity rates, then what's causing the same obesity crisis in Africa and the Middle East? The film is silent on that issue.
The producers of Fed Up are so convinced of their own argument that they have the attitude that if all people of goodwill came together to solve the problem, it would be resolved in no time. However, issues that they point to are all so complicated and contentious that no single solution would be a panacea. People disagree about federal agriculture subsidies because changes to those programmes will have real negative effects—both on farmers who receive government subsidies and on people who work in industries who directly benefit from the current system. The film attacks Senator Amy Klobuchar (Democrat of Minnesota) for defending a corporation with a large presence in her state. Although the benefits of the film's proposed solutions might well outweigh the (perhaps heavy) disruptions they would cause, the film does not acknowledge that there would be a trade-off for the people involved.
The whole film is surprisingly ignorant of the way that electoral government works, and why the best possible solution is not always the most likely outcome. It's not enough to say to a working-class family of four, “Don't eat at McDonald's—it's cheaper and healthier for you to cook your own food.” It's easy for someone who spends their days in an air-conditioned office to say that, but the people who are most in need of the ability to cook and eat their own food are the people least likely to have the skills, the time, or the energy to cook a healthy meal at the end of the day. Fast food might be marginally more expensive than cooking, but the savings in time and energy of going to the drive-through at the end of a long working day is something the documentary refuses to grapple with.
The filmmakers arguably have their heart in the right place, but in its every aspect, the film's depiction of the problem and its proscription are simplistic to the point of being insulting, and no amount of videos of weeping children will change that fact.0 -
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.
Actually, I don't really see how that correlates. I've lost 8lbs in the last 3 weeks. How does the ticker tell you that?
Most of the people who say that sugar doesn't make you fat and that we need to be responsible for ourselves have reached our goals. Not saying visible abs means you are healthy (although my blood tests show I'm very healthy), but we aren't trying to find a demon to blame for having been obese.
I don't need the government to tell companies to make healthier foods or remove sugar. I am responsible for what I put in my body. I can eat a homemade hamburger and baked potato or I could pick up McDonalds. I do both. I find balance. When I was obese I knew that eating fast food twice a day was probably a bad idea and that eating snack cakes every night was probably the reason I was gaining weight. I didn't need the government to regulate my food, I needed to make better choices. Now I have fast food when I can make it fit my calories and snack cakes when I want a treat. Personal responsibility.
+1,0000 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
Because parents that overfeed and are negligent of their kids dietary needs because of the stress of their lives or because they just don't care very much NEVER HAPPENS!
What a world of unicorns and rainbows you must live in.
Lady it happens all the time. It's sad but it does. Parental negligence is a big big problem. And kids learn from their parents. If a parent feeds their kid Mcdonald's and ice cream that's what the child will think is appropriate food. And when walking into Mcdonald's in my neighborhood there are actually more mums feeding their kids than adults. It is so f*cking depressing. I know you don't want to believe it but it's a FACT.
And that's only the most obvious example. I doubt many parents actually scrutinize the nutritional labels of much of what their kids eat. As long as it looks okayish it passes muster. Generally not out of ill will towards the children but because in today's world just providing for their children is hard enough.
If one where to look at percentages you would probably find that very few parents take a concrete nutritional interest in what their children eat. As long as they have enough. It's not evil it's just tired or ignorant people making the same old mistakes. And like i mentioned before some are just plain negligent.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
You have left out the possibility that people here, and I'll openly label myself as in this group, are "defending" white sugar because we're privileged, highly educated, and do have all the facts.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
Because parents that overfeed and are negligent of their kids dietary needs because of the stress of their lives or because they just don't care very much NEVER HAPPENS!
What a world of unicorns and rainbows you must live in.
Lady it happens all the time. It's sad but it does. Parental negligence is a big big problem. And kids learn from their parents. If a parent feeds their kid Mcdonald's and ice cream that's what the child will think is appropriate food. And when walking into Mcdonald's in my neighborhood there are actually more mums feeding their kids than adults. It is so f*cking depressing. I know you don't want to believe it but it's a FACT.
And that's only the most obvious example. I doubt many parents actually scrutinize the nutritional labels of much of what their kids eat. As long as it looks okayish it passes muster. Generally not out of ill will towards the children but because in today's world just providing for their children is hard enough.
If one where to look at percentages you would probably find that very few parents take a concrete nutritional interest in what their children eat. As long as they have enough. It's not evil it's just tired or ignorant people making the same old mistakes. And like i mentioned before some are just plain negligent.
Baloney because every loving family on my street fed their kids the same crap in the 1970s that we had in our cupboard. My own parents would have stood in front of a train for us but had no idea the impact of the processed foods we had. You think all people have the resource, time and energy to be walking nutritional encyclopedias -- with "facts" changing daily? Not possible and not even close to being reasonable.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
You have left out the possibility that people here, and I'll openly label myself as in this group, are "defending" white sugar because we're privileged, highly educated, and do have all the facts.
So what did you think about that Fifth Estate report? I assume you have a semi open mind and can understand what it's saying?0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
You have left out the possibility that people here, and I'll openly label myself as in this group, are "defending" white sugar because we're privileged, highly educated, and do have all the facts.
Aye most of the anti sugar ranting eventually comes down to .. you just don't know any better. Not like me. Yeah it's true a diet of pure sugar is probably bad for you. But it doesn't have to be restricted any more than your carb intake does. Sugar is a carb. And in the end our entire metabolism runs on sugar. That's why it's such fast energy as your body doesn't have to do much to process it into fuel. Fat that you eat becomes sugar. Protein that you eat becomes sugar. If sugar where SO bad for us we would all be dead.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
You have left out the possibility that people here, and I'll openly label myself as in this group, are "defending" white sugar because we're privileged, highly educated, and do have all the facts.
Aye most of the anti sugar ranting eventually comes down to .. you just don't know any better. Not like me. Yeah it's true a diet of pure sugar is probably bad for you. But it doesn't have to be restricted any more than your carb intake does. Sugar is a carb. And in the end our entire metabolism runs on sugar. That's why it's such fast energy as your body doesn't have to do much to process it into fuel. Fat that you eat becomes sugar. Protein that you eat becomes sugar. If sugar where SO bad for us we would all be dead.
And most of us will be dead -- of a preventable disease caused by poor nutrition. Sad in our "enlightened" world.0 -
I haven't seen, but will be adding it to my list of things to watch. Thanks. Great info!0
-
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
No
Sorry but having kids doesn't make you a special snowflake and automatically immune to criticism
Honestly the fact that you would even pull that card is kinda pathetic.
It's pathetic when someone who has NO IDEA on the difficulties of raising a child in this world, blames everything on only one factor - parents and not the environmental impact of the world around. Kids spend 8 hours a day in a school with public education (provided by government), eat in school cafeterias, see billboard after billboard in transport or in stores... but of course, it's absolutely 100% parental responsibility for the impact and education that these children receive -- especially about food.0 -
I wasn't IN before. Now I am
0 -
Its not realistic. Sugar is added to everything to make it taste better, so that you will buy it. Why to they do all the taste tests? For example, do you expect you french fries to be coated in sugar? ..probably not...but if you buy them from McDonalds or the store..they are. It make them brown up and look better. I don't know about you , but if I was making fries at home I wouldn't be coating them in sugar first. So how is the consumer supposed to know other than to avoid all processed foods?
Actually pretty much everyone I knew growing up in the 70's where their parents made homemade French fries knew to add some sugar to the water you soak the fries in first so they would brown up better. I always assumed this was common knowledge. Guess I was wrong. I actually don't on the rare occasion I make them but my mom and my friends moms made homemade fries (and I am talking straight from potatoes, not that frozen, precut, manufactured garbage) at least once a month. That was always the day you tried to eat at your friends house.0 -
And all the while as we throw the blame on fat sugar carbs and cholesterol. We ignore the elephant in the room. The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility.
And you suggest that most parents feeding their kids crap are willingly poisoning their kids? Of course not! The reality is that parents are often misinformed through all the government campaigning, marketing etc that craftily presents those foods as good choices for their family and downplays the negative health impacts of foods like sugar.
There are even privileged and, I'll assumed, highly educated people on this thread defending white sugar because they don't have all the facts! Some of them call others "tin foil" hat wearers to try to quickly discredit anyone even questioning that. Meanwhile, sugar companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
That's why I call these companies culpable as much as the individual.
You have left out the possibility that people here, and I'll openly label myself as in this group, are "defending" white sugar because we're privileged, highly educated, and do have all the facts.
Aye most of the anti sugar ranting eventually comes down to .. you just don't know any better. Not like me. Yeah it's true a diet of pure sugar is probably bad for you. But it doesn't have to be restricted any more than your carb intake does. Sugar is a carb. And in the end our entire metabolism runs on sugar. That's why it's such fast energy as your body doesn't have to do much to process it into fuel. Fat that you eat becomes sugar. Protein that you eat becomes sugar. If sugar where SO bad for us we would all be dead.
And most of us will be dead -- of a preventable disease caused by poor nutrition. Sad in our "enlightened" world.
Actually what is really sad. Really really sad. Is people still want to cling to the belief that any one nutrient is responsible for their condition rather than their inability to display enough willpower to simply eat less and move more.
I have lost 117lbs
I have about tripled the amount of weight i can lift.
I have gone from someone who wheezes after jogging across a pedestrian crossing to someone who can run 5km. And will soon be going for his first 10k
I have lost 13" from my waist.
I eat quite a lot of fruit. And lots of white sugar in my breakfast cereal.
In fact pretty much every day I am over mfp's sugar limitation by at least 40g. Sometimes 100g +
Sometimes I even go over carbs. But I try not to.
In fact the majority of my carbs probably come from sugar.
Getting these diseases isn't just about sugar intake. The process of sugar regulation applies to ALL FOOD. That's what you know educated intelligent people know. And what I have been trying to tell you. Yeah if you overload your sugar regulation system you probably end up with diabetes eventually. But all food you eat contributes to this. Even lettuce to its own small degree. People who get it aren't eating too much sugar. Just eating too much.0 -
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
No
Sorry but having kids doesn't make you a special snowflake and automatically immune to criticism
Honestly the fact that you would even pull that card is kinda pathetic.
It's pathetic when someone who has NO IDEA on the difficulties of raising a child in this world, blames everything on only one factor - parents and not the environmental impact of the world around. Kids spend 8 hours a day in a school with public education (provided by government), eat in school cafeterias, see billboard after billboard in transport or in stores... but of course, it's absolutely 100% parental responsibility for the impact and education that these children receive -- especially about food.
And that's the cop out parents have used to get out of everything.
Sorry don't care about your sob story. Oh and If you read up I said PERSONAL AND PARENTAL responsibility.
Also I even said that it's not really the parents fault a lot of the time. Sometimes it is though.
And no you can't monitor everything. But you can't expect to control everything. I never made any assumptions like that. You have just decided to attack me because I mentioned that parental responsibility is a problem in many cases .. and it is.
You are just appealing to parenthood to get out of the fact that your argument on sugar stinks and it's not worth wasting any more time on you.0 -
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
At this point, when you're telling people what they can and can't comment on, its time to step away from the computer. You've crossed a line right here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone has a right to debate.0 -
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
At this point, when you're telling people what they can and can't comment on, its time to step away from the computer. You've crossed a line right here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone has a right to debate.
Sure, but don't debate on parental responsibility if you have none. It's insulting.0 -
So should a pediatrician not treat children if they don't have any?And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
At this point, when you're telling people what they can and can't comment on, its time to step away from the computer. You've crossed a line right here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone has a right to debate.
Sure, but don't debate on parental responsibility if you have none. It's insulting.0 -
How cute are you????And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
Such a shining example to your little ones, I'm sure!0 -
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
No
Sorry but having kids doesn't make you a special snowflake and automatically immune to criticism
Honestly the fact that you would even pull that card is kinda pathetic.
It's pathetic when someone who has NO IDEA on the difficulties of raising a child in this world, blames everything on only one factor - parents and not the environmental impact of the world around. Kids spend 8 hours a day in a school with public education (provided by government), eat in school cafeterias, see billboard after billboard in transport or in stores... but of course, it's absolutely 100% parental responsibility for the impact and education that these children receive -- especially about food.
I have two children that I raise on my own. I was a horrible example the first few years of their lives. They understand now that when we have fast food it's a treat and having candy or sweets is a treat. They don't complain about fruits, vegetables or lean meats because they know that we eat them to keep our bodies healthy and strong. I don't have to hide the fact that Mountain Dew tastes good or that McDonalds exists (and has toys!). My kids know it's there and we will have them sometimes. Sometimes I pack my kids lunches, but at school they are some of the few to actually eat the fruits and vegetables. They know it's good for them and the choose to eat that all on their own. Education and parental responsibility.
When I was growing up my parents never let us have fast food and candy was rare. As soon as I could drive that's all my sisters and I ate. I don't blame my parents, but I do know that being deprived of things growing up just made us crave them more.0 -
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
No
Sorry but having kids doesn't make you a special snowflake and automatically immune to criticism
Honestly the fact that you would even pull that card is kinda pathetic.
It's pathetic when someone who has NO IDEA on the difficulties of raising a child in this world, blames everything on only one factor - parents and not the environmental impact of the world around. Kids spend 8 hours a day in a school with public education (provided by government), eat in school cafeterias, see billboard after billboard in transport or in stores... but of course, it's absolutely 100% parental responsibility for the impact and education that these children receive -- especially about food.
And that's the cop out parents have used to get out of everything.
Sorry don't care about your sob story. Oh and If you read up I said PERSONAL AND PARENTAL responsibility.
Also I even said that it's not really the parents fault a lot of the time. Sometimes it is though.
And no you can't monitor everything. But you can't expect to control everything. I never made any assumptions like that. You have just decided to attack me because I mentioned that parental responsibility is a problem in many cases .. and it is.
You are just appealing to parenthood to get out of the fact that your argument on sugar stinks and it's not worth wasting any more time on you.
I didn't give you a sob story and you went from saying "The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility. " to "sometimes" and "You can't monitor....control everything". I see my point sank in.
When you are trying to shuffle your 4 year old through the grocery store and they are wailing for some junk they see at the counter that you have no intention of feeding them but it's there, it will even more.0 -
Lots of shills for the food industry in this thread.0
-
So should a pediatrician not treat children if they don't have any?And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
At this point, when you're telling people what they can and can't comment on, its time to step away from the computer. You've crossed a line right here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone has a right to debate.
Sure, but don't debate on parental responsibility if you have none. It's insulting.
Sorry, not going down the this illogical pathway. How about this... would you hire a dog trainer that has never trained an actual dog?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And for those that are talking about "parental responsibility" and don't have kids, STFU.
No
Sorry but having kids doesn't make you a special snowflake and automatically immune to criticism
Honestly the fact that you would even pull that card is kinda pathetic.
It's pathetic when someone who has NO IDEA on the difficulties of raising a child in this world, blames everything on only one factor - parents and not the environmental impact of the world around. Kids spend 8 hours a day in a school with public education (provided by government), eat in school cafeterias, see billboard after billboard in transport or in stores... but of course, it's absolutely 100% parental responsibility for the impact and education that these children receive -- especially about food.
And that's the cop out parents have used to get out of everything.
Sorry don't care about your sob story. Oh and If you read up I said PERSONAL AND PARENTAL responsibility.
Also I even said that it's not really the parents fault a lot of the time. Sometimes it is though.
And no you can't monitor everything. But you can't expect to control everything. I never made any assumptions like that. You have just decided to attack me because I mentioned that parental responsibility is a problem in many cases .. and it is.
You are just appealing to parenthood to get out of the fact that your argument on sugar stinks and it's not worth wasting any more time on you.
I didn't give you a sob story and you went from saying "The obvious culprit. And the one we want to ignore because we know it is the source.
Personal and Parental responsibility. " to "sometimes" and "You can't monitor....control everything". I see my point sank in.
When you are trying to shuffle your 4 year old through the grocery store and they are wailing for some junk they see at the counter that you have no intention of feeding them but it's there, it will even more.
No it really didn't
Appealing to parenthood IS your sob story.
Waah im a parent and it's hard! You don't have the right to tell me im doing it wrong because your not a parent!
now let's try a substitution.
Waah im a teenager and it's hard! You don't have the right to tell me im doing it wrong because your not a teenager!
It's the same sad hollow excuse of an argument and I have no time for it. The fact that parents can't always help things a lot of the time was covered in one of my earlier posts. You where just too busy spitting the dummy to notice it. It's still no excuse for them not to try.
I don't have to be a gymnast to tell someone that falls on their bum all the time that they aren't a very good gymnast.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