The Skinny on Obesity (or: "Calories are not created equal")

Let the refutation ensue...

Frankly and in all honesty, I don't give a **** what other people eat. Have ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Good for you. Sugar rocks your world and you are proud of that...Rock away...

And I am sorry if I let the cat out of the bag...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI

Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.

NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.

Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI

Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.

NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.

Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.

Everything you post here is completely contrary to fact.

NO ONE says that calories are all that matter. NO ONE.

A ton of people here say that NUTRIENTS matter. It's not whether something is "refined" or "clean" or "dirty" or "processed" or "natural." What matters is the nutrients you provide your body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI

Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.

NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.

Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.

I think you misunderstand what "calories in/calories out" is actually in reference to.

The American Journal of Nutrition appears to disagree with you.

Study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

People are so rude! wow, why can't someone post something and not get all of the sarcasm and speculation. if you aren't interested just don't post it...even if it's alreay in the threads 1000 times you don't have to be rude.

OP, thanks for sharing, I have not seen this yet

It's not rude to disprove inaccurate information. We ARE interested and we DO post because we don't want bad information getting passed around to people who don't know the real science behind weight loss. And I wouldn't really call it speculation. It's science.

I find it hard to believe that all the complainers on these 5 pages of replies actually watched the 60-minute video. So it is rude to disprove information when you don't even know what the information is.

OP: Thanks for taking the time to share this. Some of us realize you had other things you could be doing, but in an effort to help those that might be helped by the video, you took the time to share the information. Keep it up! If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.

This "documentary" has been out for a while now. Many of us have had a chance to watch it, read about it, study it, research it, etc. prior to this thread.

If there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of the video, I'd totally watch it.

Oh, wait. You yourself haven't watched it but you're defending it against those that you assume also haven't watched it? Interesting. What a remarkably presumptuous and hypocritical position.

BAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI

Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.

NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.

Posting any information in the general forums, that even remotely suggests that the quality of food we ingest affects our body/health, is futile. Because huge percentage of the people here (at least the ones that bother commenting) can't follow the logic that the human body is a complex system and that WHAT we eat does affect how our body operates. The answer to anything and everything is merely the simplistic "calories in/calories out" and those of us that report health improvements by changing WHAT we eat are completely ridiculed, even though there are so many of us reporting the same experience that many doctors can no longer ignore it. I suspect that it's because most of the "calories in/calories out/eat anything/avoid fat crowd are so malnourished that their brains are just no longer functioning optimally. I just can't follow the "logic" that what we eat does NOT affect health. Besides that my own real life experience blows that theory to shreds; as well as the multi-generational experiences of the many aboriginal groups that I have lived amongst.

Everything you post here is completely contrary to fact.

NO ONE says that calories are all that matter. NO ONE.

A ton of people here say that NUTRIENTS matter. It's not whether something is "refined" or "clean" or "dirty" or "processed" or "natural." What matters is the nutrients you provide your body.

You know the drill...those who believe that CICO is the principal/primary driver in weight gain/loss automatically believe that the nutrient quality of the food is irrelevant. Don't bother correcting that...because everyone *knows* it to be true...

...because strawmen are easier (and more fun) to tear down.



Edit: because homonym abuse must stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKxfImHkFI

Documentary mini-series on the dangers of sugar, the Industrial Age diet and how it impacts y/our struggle with weight.

NOTE: While a calorie may be a calorie in terms of energy burn, there are a LOT of other variables like how they burn and their impact on the rest of the body (and its systems) that make some calories a much better choice than others. For those who wonder, here's why.

I rarely if ever use the dislike button on YouTube. After watching part of this video I felt a strong moral responsibility to do so today.

I don't trust scientists who cannot perform basic math:

Watch 9:55 – 10:35 in the video

He claims that 80% of obese people have (his definition of) metabolic diseases

He claims that 40% of skinny/normal (he uses both terms) weight people have metabolic diseases

He then "does the math” (10:25 in the video) and claims this totals 60% of America

This would only be true if the obese group (>30 BMI by CDC criteria) was the exact same size as the other group (which it is not).

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Since even his most basic math is flawed how can you trust his other data or cause and effect claims?

Actually, his math is something like this:

60% of people in America = Obese/Overweight
80% of 60% of people in America = Obese/Overweight + Metabolic X = 48% of the American Population
40% of people in America = Skinny/Normal Weight
40% of 40% of people in America = Skinny/Normal Weight + Metabolic X = 16% of the American Population

16% + 48% = 64% of American Population with Metabolic X or approximately 60%.

So even though they did a poor job of the display on the video and I think the editing and splicing of the overall interview seems to have skipped points or information, the numbers do add up to ~60%.

You are right about the video not being properly edited. Even if we assume he meant to add the overweight group to the obese group 60% still does not equal 64%.

In addition, according to government statistics 68.8% of American adults are overweight/obese and 31.2% are normal weight/underweight.

"The data presented in this publication are from two surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Health Interview Survey"
http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/

With those numbers:
.8 * 68.8% = 55.04%
.4 * 31.2% = 12.48%

55.04% + 12.48% = 67.52%

60% does not equal 67.52%

I stand by my statement

people didnt get diabetic from eating berries and apples

It take 8 feet of sugar cane, imagine chewing on that , to get the equivalent amt. of sugar of one can of soda

ahhh yes the "fruit sugar is good " argument but "soda sugar" is bad argument...tried and tested as absolute garbage...

I don't think it's that some sugar is "good" while others are "bad". I think it's more of it's a lot harder to eat too much sugar from fruit than it is to eat too much sugar from oreos & snickers bars. Also, it IS a little frustrating that sugar is added to so many foods unnecessarily. For example, look at spaghetti sauces next time you're in the grocery store. You'll have a hard time finding one without sugar added. If you make your own without sugar in it, or find a jar that doesn't have sugar added, you'll find that it tastes just fine without the sugar added. So... WHY do so many food producers add it? Tomatoes have enough sugar in them to make the sauce sweet, it's totally unnecessary. Again, I didn't watch the video (although I've seen parts of it in the past), I'm sure it takes the whole sugar thing to the extreme, but that doesn't discount the fact that sugar consumption is a bit out of control these days and it won't hurt the majority of people to make an effort to cut back on their sugar consumption.

I'm not sure it's the responsibility of food manufacturers to not add sugar to stuff. That's like saying it's the grocery store's fault for putting the candy bars right next to the cash registers.

I didn't question who's responsibility it is, I asked WHY do they put it in there in the first place? I, personally don't find it any tastier with or without it. I do think it makes it more difficult for those who limit their sugar intake (because of health issues or whatever reason) to do so. I'd much rather have a piece of chocolate than have extra sugar in my spaghetti sauce. I'd really rather have a spoonful of honey