Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

twinkle150

As to the sugar, it baffles me to how otherwise intelligent people are taken aback when that prepared boxed meal that tastes slightly better than cardboard isn't exactly healthy whole food.

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.

i know they're low in calories and convenient, but i'd much rather make my own chicken and turkey lettuce wraps. they fill me up a lot better than one of those things do.

I used to eat them back in my "low-fat" days. They were repulsive but that was when the medical establishment was preaching low-fat. I got fatter. Since I cut out added sugar and most of the "healthy whole grain" I was eating, I have lost what you see on my ticker--more or less effortlessly AND I have more energy now than I had 20 years ago. Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time. In 1900, the average person ate about 5 pounds of sugar per year (it was fairly expensive in those days). Today, it is estimated that the average person eats 150 pounds per year (and much of it is "hidden" in processed food). Ironically, we eat slightly less fat than they did in 1900. But, we eat a LOT more carbohydrate and much of it is in the form of sugar. The rise of obesity and Type II diabetes perfectly tracks the post-WWII rise in sugar consumption.

Exactly my point.. I only used Rotten Ronnies french fries as an example of the widespread use of sugar in our processed foods vs 100 years ago when it was a luxury. Why do you think it was such an outrage when Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" . The peasants couldn't afford the luxury of buying sugar to bake a cake

ninerbuff

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.

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.
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

I never said sugar CAUSES diabetes. Exactly what causes Diabetes is uncertain, although it's believed that genetic susceptibility and ENVIRONMENTAL factors play a role in the development. Diabetes is an inability to control you blood glucose levels... glucose = blood sugar... hmmmmm diets high in sugar? Hmmm

So you're going back and saying sugar is the cause for diabetes? Hmmm.

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

ninerbuff

Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time.

It's not addictive. It's high palatable. There's a difference. And while highly palatable, people get fat from over consumption of calories and sick because they either are unhealthy, have a bad family health history or have low immunity.

Everyone averts to just the overweight/obese suffering from eating sugar and blaming it as the cause. Here's a secret: Thin and lean people eat sugar too. They just don't over eat.

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

ninerbuff

Ok smartypants, what has caused the increase in obesity rates then? Offer a reason so we can take your interjection seriously.

This one is easy: people are eating calorie dense foods and not burning off the excess calories. I would add that people are so wound up with working long hours, long commutes, long study hours, that it's easier to get or fix a high calorie dense meal than prep one that's more nutritious and lower in calories. Oh and super huge portions too.

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

snikkins

As to the sugar, it baffles me to how otherwise intelligent people are taken aback when that prepared boxed meal that tastes slightly better than cardboard isn't exactly healthy whole food.

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.

i know they're low in calories and convenient, but i'd much rather make my own chicken and turkey lettuce wraps. they fill me up a lot better than one of those things do.

I used to eat them back in my "low-fat" days. They were repulsive but that was when the medical establishment was preaching low-fat. I got fatter. Since I cut out added sugar and most of the "healthy whole grain" I was eating, I have lost what you see on my ticker--more or less effortlessly AND I have more energy now than I had 20 years ago. Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time. In 1900, the average person ate about 5 pounds of sugar per year (it was fairly expensive in those days). Today, it is estimated that the average person eats 150 pounds per year (and much of it is "hidden" in processed food). Ironically, we eat slightly less fat than they did in 1900. But, we eat a LOT more carbohydrate and much of it is in the form of sugar. The rise of obesity and Type II diabetes perfectly tracks the post-WWII rise in sugar consumption.

Exactly my point.. I only used Rotten Ronnies french fries as an example of the widespread use of sugar in our processed foods vs 100 years ago when it was a luxury. Why do you think it was such an outrage when Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" . The peasants couldn't afford the luxury of buying sugar to bake a cake

Firstly, apparently Marie Antoinette never actually said that. Secondly, had she actually said that, she would have been referring to brioche, which is apparently a cake made with flour, eggs, and butter, thus making the bread more expensive; brioche does also have sugar in it, but the sugar alone isn't what would have made the bread more expensive. Thirdly, thanks for bringing that up because I learned something today.

In case anyone wants to read on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake

twinkle150

Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time.

It's not addictive. It's high palatable. There's a difference. And while highly palatable, people get fat from over consumption of calories and sick because they either are unhealthy, have a bad family health history or have low immunity.

Everyone averts to just the overweight/obese suffering from eating sugar and blaming it as the cause. Here's a secret: Thin and lean people eat sugar too. They just don't over eat.

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

And where would you like your calories to come from given the choice? Processed food or whole foods given the same calorie intake? Which do you think is healthier or according to you it doesn't matter?

ninerbuff

Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time.

It's not addictive. It's high palatable. There's a difference. And while highly palatable, people get fat from over consumption of calories and sick because they either are unhealthy, have a bad family health history or have low immunity.

Everyone averts to just the overweight/obese suffering from eating sugar and blaming it as the cause. Here's a secret: Thin and lean people eat sugar too. They just don't over eat.

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

And where would you like your calories to come from given the choice? Processed food or whole foods given the same calorie intake? Which do you think is healthier or according to you it doesn't matter?

If I've reached my macro/micros for the day and have room for ice cream calories, I'm gonna eat ice cream instead of a piece of fruit. Not that I don't enjoy fruit, but I enjoy ice cream more.
At that point, neither is going to be "healthier" since I've already met macro/micro goals. It's just excess at that point and not going to enhance your health either way.

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

Mr_Knight

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

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

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

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

dbmata

Firstly, apparently Marie Antoinette never actually said that. Secondly, had she actually said that, she would have been referring to brioche, which is apparently a cake made with flour, eggs, and butter, thus making the bread more expensive; brioche does also have sugar in it, but the sugar alone isn't what would have made the bread more expensive. Thirdly, thanks for bringing that up because I learned something today.

Brioche is bread, not cake.

If someone had said that, at that time they would have been referring to a genoise, which is also the basic building block of french patisserie.

paperpudding

Wonderfullyma,I am not going to try quoting again after I mucked up my last attempt - but calling some food "food like products" is really not helping your credibility here.

Sure, some food is more nutritious than other food (also depending which nutrients you want at the time) but there is no such thing as "food like products" - that is just silly zealots talk.

Out of curiosity, does USA or other countries have confectionary free aisles? They do here, not by govt regulation,but in response to parent group's requests. Usually only one or two per supermarket but at least gives parent the option to use that aisle if they are having problems with tantrums, or anyone having problems with their own temptations.

Just a question to the thread,anyone can answer please.

A food like product is manufactured food... if you are eating chemicals, preservatives disguised to look like a nutritious food, it's not food, it's a product. Apple is a food, artificial apple flavoring is not. Never seen a candy-free aisle in Canada or the states.

yes I know what you meant by it - was just saying it is silly terminology, tending to be used by food zealots.Thus anybody using it loses credibility in a rational discussion.

Manufactured food is manufactured food - not "food like products"

also almost all food, other than raw fruit and vegetables from your own garden, are manufactured, to a more or less degree.

also we are all eating chemicals, whether in natural or more manufactured food.

eric_sg61

Since I seem to be participating in this conversation largely, I must bid you adieu... would love to chat more but need to drive the car pool in the morning. If I can find time, I'll return but this lady does have a life off screen.

At the very least, if this conversation peaks your interest, watch the documentary link I posted too...http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2013-2014/the-secrets-of-sugar

Michael Pollan also writes some great books about food politics.

Phinney, an amazing scientist/ researcher talks here about nutritional ketosis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkQYZ6FbsmI

Enjoy!

Phinney is an Atkins shill
http://www.atkins.com/Science/Advisory-Board-and-Members/Board-Members.aspx#1

k8blujay2

What do you expect? You just told me to "woman up" and judged me because I most certainly must not say "no" so that's why my child desires candy at the counter because you've got a child that doesn't? You just implied my parenting style is "yes" to whatever she desires and that created that behavior. That's not how this household runs and I'm appalled that another parent assumes that.

Yes I did say that. Because obviously you would rather blame stores and their strategically placed candy for your child's outbursts than to teach them some self control. Now unless your kid has some sensory processing disorder, kids at the ages of 3 or 4 can reason that they don't always get candy and to not have fits about it. But then I am starting to think my child really is a special snowflake.

Again, the stores wouldn't put the stuff there if they didn't know 100% that incites desire. You can say your child is wonderfully controlled but we know that they sell billions of dollars of candy and spend millions on advertising, consumer research, product placement, commercials etc because it impacts our behavior as consumers.

Because they know people do not exercise self-control. If people would learn and use that value, than it wouldn't matter where stores placed their candy. Exercise self control and it wouldn't matter where they placed it or what kind of commercials they show. Exercise moderation and then it wouldn't matter how often it's consumed, because it would all be a part of a well balanced diet.

Yes, exactly, because they know the notion of self-control when it comes to addictive substances is a farce. When you treat a heroin addict, you advise them to change their friends, the places they will get triggers -- basically their environment, because it is so overwhelmingly a predictor to their behaviour. It's not simply "self-control", it's more than that.. and the industry is playing us with addictive sugar, lack or misinformation and control of our environment. And a well-balanced diet should not include junk, exercise or not. That's like saying, a little poison is acceptable... NO, get that crap away from me!

It is still on you to exercise that self control. I honestly don't find it hard to ignore the candy by the register and I LOVE candy.

lemurcat12

Sugar is making us fat and sick--and it is addictive (that's why they put it in everything). The food manufacturers know that adding sugar will make a product more appealing and it is a cheap filler at the same time.

It's not addictive. It's high palatable. There's a difference. And while highly palatable, people get fat from over consumption of calories and sick because they either are unhealthy, have a bad family health history or have low immunity.

Everyone averts to just the overweight/obese suffering from eating sugar and blaming it as the cause. Here's a secret: Thin and lean people eat sugar too. They just don't over eat.

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

And where would you like your calories to come from given the choice? Processed food or whole foods given the same calorie intake? Which do you think is healthier or according to you it doesn't matter?

That's a different question. People here seem to be claiming that we are fat bc of hidden sugar in processed foods like boxed dinners, French fries (lol), tomato sauce, yogurt, and of course twinkles. Other than foods where the sugar is obvious (twinkles) so not hidden (I include yogurt here too, plus much of the sugar is natural, depending on the yogurt), I don't believe the sugar is a significant contributor to the calories in most of these cases. Does it make lower quality food more palatable sometimes? Probably. IMO, the problem with lean cuisines isn't that they are high in calorie or bad for you due to sugar. It's that from my perspective they taste bad and aren't satiating, especially compared to something I could make myself. Is the reason eating lots of McD fries may be correlated with obesity because of sugar? Really? Obviously not. Even if the sugar for cooking thing is true they have negligible amounts. It's rather like claiming that cooking with wine causes liver disease.

Personally I eat mostly whole foods and don't eat most of the items that supposedly have hidden sugar (I eat lots of yogurts of various kinds, including some flavored, however). But I see no reason to avoid sugar. I eat it in natural forms, of course, and also enjoy home baked treats on occasion, and also enjoy good quality chocolate, ice cream, and gelato, etc. I simply eat these when I have the calories.

While I did overeat sweets at times when gaining, I overrate non sweets more often (butter and cheese calories add up, especially when you are ignoring portion size, are sedentary, and have a TDEE of about 1800 or less without exercise). This sugar thing strikes me as trendy and mostly a search for a scapegoat for the results of bad lifestyle habits.

JoRocka

Yes, exactly, because they know the notion of self-control when it comes to addictive substances is a farce. When you treat a heroin addict, you advise them to change their friends, the places they will get triggers -- basically their environment, because it is so overwhelmingly a predictor to their behaviour. It's not simply "self-control", it's more than that.. and the industry is playing us with addictive sugar, lack or misinformation and control of our environment. And a well-balanced diet should not include junk, exercise or not. That's like saying, a little poison is acceptable... NO, get that crap away from me!

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

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

own up.

you are responsible for you. The store is responsible to make money. Food industry is responsible for making food and selling it and turning a profit.

That is their goal- they are a company- they aren't out to protect you. YOU have to do that for YOU.

good luck in the zombie apocalypse. I just don't see you making it that long honestly with that type of attitude.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

Good documentary. There's even added sugar in bagged carrots and things like that. Gotta buy the full organic kind for my kid. So sad.

I have not read through the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been addressed. The ingredients list on my Publix brand non-organic baby cut carrots says:

Ingredients: Carrots

No hidden sugar.

Raynne413

Good documentary. There's even added sugar in bagged carrots and things like that. Gotta buy the full organic kind for my kid. So sad.

I have not read through the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been addressed. The ingredients list on my Publix brand non-organic baby cut carrots says:

Ingredients: Carrots

No hidden sugar.

I've been waiting this ENTIRE thread for someone to address this! Thank you! LOL

It is NOT the government's responsibility to protect me. That is my responsibility. And if I ever have children, God forbid, it will be my responsibility to teach them how to have a healthy lifestyle, which should include moderation. My boyfriend niece and nephew are allowed candy and cookies as a dessert or a treat. But when they are hungry and want a snack, you know what they ask for? Raw veggies and fruit. Because that is what they were taught.

pyrowill

I recently watched FED UP and although I knew about the general subjects it covers : food industry, sugar, fast food in school cafetera... I was still quite surprise by some of the facts it points out :

- From 1977 to 2000 it's estimated Americans have doubled their intake of sugar.
- Despite fitness club memberships more than doubling across the U.S. between 1980 and 2000, obesity rates doubled.
- 80% of the 600,000 food products sold in the U.S. contain sugar.
- Children have more exposure to foods containing sugar, fat and sodium through advertising, including online, and in their school cafeterias than ever before.
- As the relationship between the high-sugar diet and poor health has emerged, entrenched sugar industry interests with almost unlimited financial lobbying resources have beaten back attempts by parents, schools, states, and in Congress to provide a healthier diet for children.
- Daily sugar allowance are not on labels.

Well, it certainly made me more aware of my sugar consumption in everyday products.

It's sad that actually none but the last one surprised me. Anyone have a link to that documentary?

lemurcat12

Good documentary. There's even added sugar in bagged carrots and things like that. Gotta buy the full organic kind for my kid. So sad.

I have not read through the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been addressed. The ingredients list on my Publix brand non-organic baby cut carrots says:

Ingredients: Carrots

No hidden sugar.

Yeah, I meant to respond to that one; I don't think anyone has. I buy baby carrots sometimes too, and, like yours, mine are just carrots. Now, they DO contain sugar because they are, well, carrots, so I wondered if that was leading to confusion or if there's some brand of sugar-covered carrots out there (does not sound appealing or all that likely). I have seen people insisting that regular skim milk or plain yogurt contains "added sugar" because, again, it does contain sugar, so that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

Good documentary. There's even added sugar in bagged carrots and things like that. Gotta buy the full organic kind for my kid. So sad.

I have not read through the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been addressed. The ingredients list on my Publix brand non-organic baby cut carrots says:

Ingredients: Carrots

No hidden sugar.

I've been waiting this ENTIRE thread for someone to address this! Thank you! LOL

It is NOT the government's responsibility to protect me. That is my responsibility. And if I ever have children, God forbid, it will be my responsibility to teach them how to have a healthy lifestyle, which should include moderation. My boyfriend niece and nephew are allowed candy and cookies as a dessert or a treat. But when they are hungry and want a snack, you know what they ask for? Raw veggies and fruit. Because that is what they were taught.

I agree. I have weight to lose, indeed, but I know exactly what contributed to my weight gain in the first place: too many calories that I consciously chose to consume. Yes, there are other factors in my life that contributed to me making the choice to ignore the fact that I was eating too much, but it all comes down to my own responsibility.

It's sad that the ones that are rallying behind government intervention to stop the evil corporations from effectively selling products that people want are the ones calling personal responsibility advocates sheeple and telling us to wake up or that we don't have all the facts. To me, "sheep" implies weakness, and the only weak people in my opinion are the ones claiming that these entities have more control over their choices than the people themselves, so they need more regulations to keep them safe.

It is infuriating, but I choose not to argue with them, because they won't listen to reason. I just hope that the reasonable people prevail long enough for me to grow old and die before I have the government telling me that I can't buy chocolate when I want to.

daydreams_of_pretty

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to keep writing because this is getting too long, but I think that the documentary has some good discussion points and a few interesting revelations. However, I do agree with all of you who don't think that sugar is somehow making everyone magically fat. I think that the filmmakers stopped short of a fully formed analysis of the information provided because they were too focused on sugar.

SanteMulberry

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

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

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

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

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

darkguardian419

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

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

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

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

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

No ****.....

georgiaTRIs

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

SanteMulberry

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

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

SanteMulberry

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

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

runner475

Yep, the tin foil hat crowd has arrived smh

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

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

Your logic fails in analyzing that group.

runner475

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

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

tquill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

daydreams_of_pretty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoRocka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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