KATIE COURIC'S PERILS OF FOOD POLICS
Replies
-
Yep all sugars fault and not the fact that people ride their office chairs for 8-12 hours a day then come home and ride the couch the rest of the night, people hire landscapers or use a riding mower to mow their less than .25 acre yard, people drive their car to go 1 block down the street etc..........where is that documentary.
^^^this0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There is no reason to go off the deep end. The government does not provide food for the majority of the population, nor is what it generates from your facility the reason that many Americans are obese.
Maybe you should send me a personal message if you have issue? I didnt make outlandish claims, i expressed m,y opinion - and yes, I felt you were rude because of the personal attack, not because i couldnt "back up outlandish claims" as you put it
I was obese - and I didnt know how i got that way, neither did many of my obbese friends. We werent dumb, we werent stupid, we just didnt understand. I didnt call us, obese people, dumb.
The goverment adds sugar to food, yes, ok....so...what more do you want? I don't know what "private businesses" you are talking about??? i dont really care though so there that...
yes, i place, for me personally, sugar in the same catagorie as drugs and alcohol - sure - however you see addictive, like i said, if you look up the definition of addictive, thats how i feel about sugar, for me, personally, IMO.
Your comment about Monsanto makes no sence to me so Im not sure how to respond.... I dont know what you want me to defend. Its my opinion, like i said over and over.... I work in a lab and alter food, so, its just something of interest to me because its essentially my life...
And obviously scaring people gets their attention otherwise they wouldnt do it - this is how the news works, its a bunch of bull **** - all you have to do it watch it to see that.
Smile more - be less miserable :-)
Why should I personally message you? You made your statements here, do you not want to discuss them here? Personally I prefer educating people who might read your post as to how inaccurate it is, so others don't fall for the same lies you have.
Again, the government does not add sugar to food. Private companies make and sell food. This is a fact, it's not up for debate. You're just wrong.
I am a happy, non-miserable person. I called your beliefs dumb, because they are. Same as I would to someone who thinks the Earth is flat. You being wrong about something does not make me an unhappy, mean person.
All the name calling in the world won't make what you said right. And while I may not have held your hand and said, "Aw honey, it's ok. You go right on believing any false thing that makes you happy!" that doesn't make me mean. If anything you could probably use more people in your life who are straight and honest with you, as opposed to feeling that manipulating the facts is ok so long as it inspires some kind of change in your life.
Learn more, believe facts.
I got to go have a meeting with the research leader - apparently my job here doesn't actually exist! All this time... I've been driving all the way here and going through the motions for nothing - I must have been dreaming this entire time - this entire government facility is a facade, a huge holgrame, a figment of my imagination?? Who knows, Im just glad there are so many better educated people out there than I who can point out that what i do for a living is actually just a scene from the god damned movie the matrix. Im going to go eat a candy bar and see if i can fly.
In fact, if you are making MREs, their goal is to provide incredibly calorically dense food in small quantities with a high carb load because soldiers in action don't have a lot of time to eat, and I'm sure starving to death with no energy does not make a good fighter. That said, many people active in the military who are likely to be eating MREs are usually in pretty good shape, and are not adversely affected by the sugar you are adding in your lab. Why? Because their caloric output equals or exceeds their caloric input.
And if you truly feel that you job is the downfall of the system and you are duping Americans and making them all fat, why don't you change jobs?0 -
Media should focus on teaching moderation and portion control.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The government doesn't produce food. Please explain how the government adds sugar to food it doesn't produce. You talked about "research" earlier in your post. If this is the conclusion you reached, then you may need to learn how to actually conduct research. Also, a major study was recently released proving once and for all that sugar is not addictive. Biased research leads to biased conclusions.IMO - just watched the trailer and I like it.
A. its a "documentary", the only way to get a good portion of people to actualyl WATCH something is by using scare tactics (see "any news station" for an example)
B: I'll generalize here and say that a good portion of people who are obese have no idea how they got that way, and they might need to be "scared" a little to make a change... it's a learning process, change is the first step, they will learn more and more about truths as they go (just like all of us on here
)
C. I, personally, think sugar is addictive, if you look up the definition of addictive - IMO
D. The trailer I watched opened to discuss that a good amount of foods have "added sugar" - I didn't feel it was attacking sugar AT ALL, but more attacking the goverment for "adding sugar' where its not necessary - I totally, 100% agree - the government does a lot of F-ed up *kitten* to get us to consume, Im not a a parent, but if I was, I think I would feel ashamed if the only way I could get my kid to drink milk was by adding nestle strawberry syrup to it.... sugar is good, sugar is great, kids can have sugar - but theres something to be said when it becomes NECESSARY to add it to foods just to get kids to eat it.... again, IMO
E. I hate, hate, hate, Monsanto and wish I knew a lot less about what's happening to our seeds than I do - these two items are unrelated, but, I like to think that this news documentary is just setting a table to get people talking about bigger issues... I mean thay have to start somewhere - why not sugar - its something everyone, regarless of "class" can relate to and everyone can afford... if that makes sence, it does in my head, not to go all conspiracy theory, but i hope Im on to something here...
To sum up your views:
1. You need to scare people to get them to pay attention. If this involves lies or deceitful manipulation that's alright.
2. You think overweight people are dumb and don't know why they're overweight. (so somehow blaming things that aren't the reason for them being overweight will help them...something)
3. You put sugar in the same category as drugs and alcohol.
4. You think the government adds sugar to the foods produced and sold by private businesses. Because... honestly I got nothing for that one. That's just really dumb.
5. Monsanto's bad, because seeds. So the government needs to stop putting sugar in the food we buy.
You desperately need to educate yourself beyond propaganda. It's made you believe in complete nonsense.
Sure buddy, thats your opinion of my views - I don't agree with your "summation", and I find your comments rude and false, but you are totally entiteled to believe what ever crap about me that you want! Smile more! Be miserable less :-)
So nothing about how government adds sugar to the foods we eat? I mean you said it, it's right there.
Nothing about obese people not being smart enough to know that eating too much has made them obese?
If you can't be bothered to defend your views, don't state them in the first place.
Is there anything more cowardly then putting forth your view on things and when challenged on them saying, "Smile more!" I'm not miserable. It's dishonest of you to infer that because unlike you I understand how food works.
"You're rude" = I can't back up the outlandish claims I make.
Maybe you should send me a personal message if you have issue? I didnt make outlandish claims, i expressed m,y opinion - and yes, I felt you were rude because of the personal attack, not because i couldnt "back up outlandish claims" as you put it
I was obese - and I didnt know how i got that way, neither did many of my obbese friends. We werent dumb, we werent stupid, we just didnt understand. I didnt call us, obese people, dumb.
The goverment adds sugar to food, yes, ok....so...what more do you want? I don't know what "private businesses" you are talking about??? i dont really care though so there that...
yes, i place, for me personally, sugar in the same catagorie as drugs and alcohol - sure - however you see addictive, like i said, if you look up the definition of addictive, thats how i feel about sugar, for me, personally, IMO.
Your comment about Monsanto makes no sence to me so Im not sure how to respond.... I dont know what you want me to defend. Its my opinion, like i said over and over.... I work in a lab and alter food, so, its just something of interest to me because its essentially my life...
And obviously scaring people gets their attention otherwise they wouldnt do it - this is how the news works, its a bunch of bull **** - all you have to do it watch it to see that.
Smile more - be less miserable :-)
I work for the united states goverment goverment at a research facility. I make food. I grow things in petri dishes that end up in MREs and feed our military personel. So, I guess you can say that the goverment produces food.
Not sure what reserach you are refencing... again, I said IN MY OPINION sugar is addictive to ME, personally. Look up the definition of addictive - thats what sugar was for me. Not sure why so many people are having a hard time understanding this...it has nothing to do with any one other than me, though i would argue there's probably someone else on this planet that has found themselves in the same situation I was in.
Today I learned that MREs are grown in petri dishes.0 -
They should introduce a mandatory nutrition&basic biology course like 1 hour a week or even 1/month in high schools globally. I think it would solve a lot for the future. The question is how to properly educate it, imagine a teacher following lustig's every word teaching it. The horror.
It will also remove the argument "I don't know how I got fat" from the table, I hate that excuse.0 -
you literally did the exact same thing with your first response the hers. not to mention you have yet to counter-argue any statements made against said first post, probably because it was showing how ignorant it was
Maybe you should send me a personal message if you have issue? I didnt make outlandish claims, i expressed m,y opinion - and yes, I felt you were rude because of the personal attack, not because i couldnt "back up outlandish claims" as you put it
I was obese - and I didnt know how i got that way, neither did many of my obbese friends. We werent dumb, we werent stupid, we just didnt understand. I didnt call us, obese people, dumb.
The goverment adds sugar to food, yes, ok....so...what more do you want? I don't know what "private businesses" you are talking about??? i dont really care though so there that...
yes, i place, for me personally, sugar in the same catagorie as drugs and alcohol - sure - however you see addictive, like i said, if you look up the definition of addictive, thats how i feel about sugar, for me, personally, IMO.
Your comment about Monsanto makes no sence to me so Im not sure how to respond.... I dont know what you want me to defend. Its my opinion, like i said over and over.... I work in a lab and alter food, so, its just something of interest to me because its essentially my life...
And obviously scaring people gets their attention otherwise they wouldnt do it - this is how the news works, its a bunch of bull **** - all you have to do it watch it to see that.
Smile more - be less miserable :-)
Why should I personally message you? You made your statements here, do you not want to discuss them here? Personally I prefer educating people who might read your post as to how inaccurate it is, so others don't fall for the same lies you have.
Again, the government does not add sugar to food. Private companies make and sell food. This is a fact, it's not up for debate. You're just wrong.
I am a happy, non-miserable person. I called your beliefs dumb, because they are. Same as I would to someone who thinks the Earth is flat. You being wrong about something does not make me an unhappy, mean person.
All the name calling in the world won't make what you said right. And while I may not have held your hand and said, "Aw honey, it's ok. You go right on believing any false thing that makes you happy!" that doesn't make me mean. If anything you could probably use more people in your life who are straight and honest with you, as opposed to feeling that manipulating the facts is ok so long as it inspires some kind of change in your life.
Learn more, believe facts.
I got to go have a meeting with the research leader - apparently my job here doesn't actually exist! All this time... I've been driving all the way here and going through the motions for nothing - I must have been dreaming this entire time - this entire government facility is a facade, a huge holgrame, a figment of my imagination?? Who knows, Im just glad there are so many better educated people out there than I who can point out that what i do for a living is actually just a scene from the god damned movie the matrix. Im going to go eat a candy bar and see if i can fly.
At this point you're just being obtuse. You know the obesity problem in the U.S. is not caused by sugar added to MRE's. Regular citizens don't eat those and even soldiers only eat them in times of need.
Maybe you're ok with misrepresenting facts to make a point. I'm not. I find it to be intellectually dishonest.0 -
Very true. Personal responsibility is so difficult to implement for many things. Look at the lawsuits running rampant in this country. Nothing is our fault, and not only that, I have pain and suffering from what someone else did to me.Media should focus on teaching moderation and portion control.
That would work, but it would involve personal responsibility.
People don't like that. They want someone to blame. They want excuses as to why it's not their fault.
So this nonsense sells. And that's what's more important to some people.
I prefer to go with what works. Because I'm not going to mislead people to make some cash.0 -
Oh sorry...I will never give up sugar. I lost 129 pounds having a little sugar everyday to quiet my sweet tooth. All things in moderation, balance works for me.0
-
I tend to ignore programs like these and do my own research. Unfortunately, most of America sits on their couches and devours every single thing the media hands them and so the next big thing will be sugar because no one can think for themselves or research for themselves.0
-
I have a problem with any view point that removes the responsibility from the person and onto something else. Like processed sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc... The food in bad quantities doesn't just jump into your mouth, you put it in there.
Fat people wouldn't be fat if they learned moderation. And that goes for this guy. That's the # 1 struggle for me.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Lordy! If folks would get off their high horse, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that there are huge problems with ADDED sugars to processed foods. For those who feel that fat is the problem, too, you're right. Added fats to processed foods is a problem, but this documentary is about sugar. The problem with added fats, added sugars, and high amounts of sodium in the United States is a cultural issue. Fix the culture; fix the problem.
I can buy a one-pound bag of sugar, and it can sit around my house for a year, unless I bake. I don't use that much salt. My main problem is that I like food too much, so I have to be careful about the amount of calories I take in, vs the amount of exercise I do to burn said calories. That is a matter of personal responsibility. I do buy cookies, and I will have one for dessert.
I have a grandson who is obese. His mother will pack him a 1000-calorie lunch for school, and what she packs for him is crap. He is 10 years old, and if it isn't a corn dog, french fries, ketchup, cheese pizza, candy, or ice cream, he won't eat it. The last time he was probably fed vegetables was in his baby food. This kind of stuff makes me want to weep, because unless something changes, it's not going to get any better for him.0 -
This is why all the "sabotage" threads in the motivation section bother me. I've never seen anyone shove food in their co-workers/family members mouth, and then hold their mouth and nose closed until they swallow. But it's so much easier to say someone else is not respecting your diet and goals than to say that you don't care enough about your goals to put the cookie down (or find a way to fit it in your daily goal).I have a problem with any view point that removes the responsibility from the person and onto something else. Like processed sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc... The food in bad quantities doesn't just jump into your mouth, you put it in there.
Fat people wouldn't be fat if they learned moderation. And that goes for this guy. That's the # 1 struggle for me.0 -
OoooOo... Just posted this yesterday on this thread - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1286392-thermodynamic-vs-metabolic-hormonal-the-value-of-a-calorieFed Up?
QUOTE:
May 9, 2014
Katie Couric: Drug Dealer?
Today is the day the nation’s food police have been waiting for: the day Fed Up, a film calling for government control over the food supply, is available in theaters across the United States. Pre-screenings of the film let us know that sugar is compared to illegal drugs to make it seem addictive. And when we saw the film the other night, we weren’t surprised to see Robert Lustig, a propagandist who has called for ABC-style regulations on sugar, given air time.
So if sugar is really a larger-granule form of cocaine, then isn’t journalist Katie Couric, the film’s producer and narrator, a drug dealer? According to her social media pages, Couric has no problem dealing purportedly addictive substances like crack-cookies and dope-donuts to vulnerable populations like children and grandmothers.
A quick glance at Couric’s Facebook page reveals that she is a strong supporter of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, as she writes, “Personally, I’m grateful that Ding-Dongs [sic] will still be available for purchase.” But Couric’s drug-pushing doesn’t stop there as she deals “dangerous” sugar to her daughter’s history class in the form of ginger cookies. She even gave a chocolate-filled donut to a young girl in her audience which, for all we know, established a “crushing dependency” that has sent this child to a crème-filled version of a methadone clinic.
Not even grandmothers are safe from Couric’s insistence that others join her in her “addiction” as she gave her mother a cake for her 91st birthday.
The habit even led Couric to promote recipes that include lime gelatin (24 grams of sugar per serving) and cupcakes that, with frosting, contain almost 95 grams of sugar each.
It seems Couric doesn’t really believe sugar to be as dangerous as her new film would have you believe. On the one hand, it’s typical elitism — the idea of “sugar for me, but not for thee,” placing Miss Couric above the plebeians who need the government to help them eat.
On the other hand, it shows that the old advice of moderation and personal responsibility still rings true. We need look no further than the hypocrites trying to destroy these notions.
But while Couric continues to peddle food hysteria, let’s enjoy some pictures of what Cocaine Katie pushes in her free time. It all looks quite delicious—in moderation, of course.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2014/05/katie-couric-drug-dealer/0 -
I have a grandson who is obese. His mother will pack him a 1000-calorie lunch for school, and what she packs for him is crap. He is 10 years old, and if it isn't a corn dog, french fries, ketchup, cheese pizza, candy, or ice cream, he won't eat it. The last time he was probably fed vegetables was in his baby food. This kind of stuff makes me want to weep, because unless something changes, it's not going to get any better for him.
That's not a sugar problem, it's a parenting problem. Again blaming companies and their evil sugar for something people need to take responsibility for themselves.0 -
I have a 10 year old child that is completely and disturbingly addicted to sugar. She even knows she's addicted too it, and has been actively taking steps to cut back on it. I have a vivid memory of her coming home from school one day with literally a trash bag full of candy. It turns out there was some leftover from a school party and she asked if she could take it home.
She has three sets of grandparents, a dad and a step-mom. It is not even remotely abnormal for her to be walking around eating a box of Lofthouse cookies (her favorite) or a dozen mini-cupcakes (her other favorite.) Or a plate of a dozen home-made cookies that step-mom and her made together.
I work full-time, so I can make sure she eats a balanced dinner, but as for what she's eating in school and with other family members, and when she is taking her own money and buying sugary treats with them while I'm still at work I have a hard time controlling it. The other family members have good intentions, to them cupcakes are food, and they are just feeding their angel. Dad and her love to eat M&M's and pop-corn for dinner. I'm not even joking here. This is despite my pleas to introduce balance, but these people weigh maybe 300+ apiece, they truly don't understand.
I agree with other MFP posters that sugar is not a huge deal for us because we use moderation and are aware of what we're eating, but we are not representative of the norm.0 -
Very true. Personal responsibility is so difficult to implement for many things. Look at the lawsuits running rampant in this country. Nothing is our fault, and not only that, I have pain and suffering from what someone else did to me.Media should focus on teaching moderation and portion control.
That would work, but it would involve personal responsibility.
People don't like that. They want someone to blame. They want excuses as to why it's not their fault.
So this nonsense sells. And that's what's more important to some people.
I prefer to go with what works. Because I'm not going to mislead people to make some cash.
Yea. It sucks.
I believe that giving people the FACTS and then letting them make their own decisions based on those facts is the way to go. But you guys are right, they wouldn't have much of a story if they did that.
I get how some foods trigger emotional responses from people and I also get how that can be hard to break through.
But in the end, only you are responsible for what goes in your mouth. There are a lot of factors that play into this, but it is important to educate people on the FACTS. Not demonizing one particular food. Because sugar is just not to blame for obesity. Too much sugar? Too much food? Too many calories? Definitely yes.
Until then, I really don't want to hear the media complaining about the obesity epidemic. When you give misinformation, what do you expect?0 -
I have a grandson who is obese. His mother will pack him a 1000-calorie lunch for school, and what she packs for him is crap. He is 10 years old, and if it isn't a corn dog, french fries, ketchup, cheese pizza, candy, or ice cream, he won't eat it. The last time he was probably fed vegetables was in his baby food. This kind of stuff makes me want to weep, because unless something changes, it's not going to get any better for him.
That's not a sugar problem, it's a parenting problem. Again blaming companies and their evil sugar for something people need to take responsibility for themselves.
Yea, that is pretty much awful. I hate seeing obese children. Obese adults are one thing; they are responsible for their choices. Children often times are not, and do not know any better.0 -
I have a grandson who is obese. His mother will pack him a 1000-calorie lunch for school, and what she packs for him is crap. He is 10 years old, and if it isn't a corn dog, french fries, ketchup, cheese pizza, candy, or ice cream, he won't eat it. The last time he was probably fed vegetables was in his baby food. This kind of stuff makes me want to weep, because unless something changes, it's not going to get any better for him.
His mother could pack 1000 calorie lunches full of healthy foods and he'd be just as fat. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing more than poor parenting. Children should not tell parents what they are going to eat. Far too many parents want to be friends with their kid(s).0 -
you literally did the exact same thing with your first response the hers. not to mention you have yet to counter-argue any statements made against said first post, probably because it was showing how ignorant it was
Maybe you should send me a personal message if you have issue? I didnt make outlandish claims, i expressed m,y opinion - and yes, I felt you were rude because of the personal attack, not because i couldnt "back up outlandish claims" as you put it
I was obese - and I didnt know how i got that way, neither did many of my obbese friends. We werent dumb, we werent stupid, we just didnt understand. I didnt call us, obese people, dumb.
The goverment adds sugar to food, yes, ok....so...what more do you want? I don't know what "private businesses" you are talking about??? i dont really care though so there that...
yes, i place, for me personally, sugar in the same catagorie as drugs and alcohol - sure - however you see addictive, like i said, if you look up the definition of addictive, thats how i feel about sugar, for me, personally, IMO.
Your comment about Monsanto makes no sence to me so Im not sure how to respond.... I dont know what you want me to defend. Its my opinion, like i said over and over.... I work in a lab and alter food, so, its just something of interest to me because its essentially my life...
And obviously scaring people gets their attention otherwise they wouldnt do it - this is how the news works, its a bunch of bull **** - all you have to do it watch it to see that.
Smile more - be less miserable :-)
Why should I personally message you? You made your statements here, do you not want to discuss them here? Personally I prefer educating people who might read your post as to how inaccurate it is, so others don't fall for the same lies you have.
Again, the government does not add sugar to food. Private companies make and sell food. This is a fact, it's not up for debate. You're just wrong.
I am a happy, non-miserable person. I called your beliefs dumb, because they are. Same as I would to someone who thinks the Earth is flat. You being wrong about something does not make me an unhappy, mean person.
All the name calling in the world won't make what you said right. And while I may not have held your hand and said, "Aw honey, it's ok. You go right on believing any false thing that makes you happy!" that doesn't make me mean. If anything you could probably use more people in your life who are straight and honest with you, as opposed to feeling that manipulating the facts is ok so long as it inspires some kind of change in your life.
Learn more, believe facts.
I got to go have a meeting with the research leader - apparently my job here doesn't actually exist! All this time... I've been driving all the way here and going through the motions for nothing - I must have been dreaming this entire time - this entire government facility is a facade, a huge holgrame, a figment of my imagination?? Who knows, Im just glad there are so many better educated people out there than I who can point out that what i do for a living is actually just a scene from the god damned movie the matrix. Im going to go eat a candy bar and see if i can fly.
At this point you're just being obtuse. You know the obesity problem in the U.S. is not caused by sugar added to MRE's. Regular citizens don't eat those and even soldiers only eat them in times of need.
Maybe you're ok with misrepresenting facts to make a point. I'm not. I find it to be intellectually dishonest.
I quoted her and read back her words. Maybe I was blunt, but I did not misrepresent what she said.
Here's my stunning counter argument, in case you missed it:
Private companies make the food we buy, not the government. The general public has not gained weight due to eating MRE's with sugar added to them. Because the general public does not eat MRE's.
I don't think you need to use scare tactics to help people. And I think it's even worse to mislead them about sugar.
I think most people who are overweight aren't so clueless that they have no idea how it could have happened.
Claiming that sugar is addictive, and backing that up by saying anything is addictive, destroys the meaning behind the term and is a real insult to people who have struggled with addiction. Don't agree with me? Tell a guy going through heroin withdrawals how similar you are because you like cookies.
Monsanto is irrelevant to this discussion.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong. And understand that I'm engaging in debate, same as you. This does not make me an unhappy, miserable person.
^^So this...not wrong, definitely better informed and more articulate...0 -
When will they stop trying to control everyone's lives?OoooOo... Just posted this yesterday on this thread - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1286392-thermodynamic-vs-metabolic-hormonal-the-value-of-a-calorieFed Up?
QUOTE:
May 9, 2014
Katie Couric: Drug Dealer?
Today is the day the nation’s food police have been waiting for: the day Fed Up, a film calling for government control over the food supply, is available in theaters across the United States. Pre-screenings of the film let us know that sugar is compared to illegal drugs to make it seem addictive. And when we saw the film the other night, we weren’t surprised to see Robert Lustig, a propagandist who has called for ABC-style regulations on sugar, given air time.
So if sugar is really a larger-granule form of cocaine, then isn’t journalist Katie Couric, the film’s producer and narrator, a drug dealer? According to her social media pages, Couric has no problem dealing purportedly addictive substances like crack-cookies and dope-donuts to vulnerable populations like children and grandmothers.
A quick glance at Couric’s Facebook page reveals that she is a strong supporter of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, as she writes, “Personally, I’m grateful that Ding-Dongs [sic] will still be available for purchase.” But Couric’s drug-pushing doesn’t stop there as she deals “dangerous” sugar to her daughter’s history class in the form of ginger cookies. She even gave a chocolate-filled donut to a young girl in her audience which, for all we know, established a “crushing dependency” that has sent this child to a crème-filled version of a methadone clinic.
Not even grandmothers are safe from Couric’s insistence that others join her in her “addiction” as she gave her mother a cake for her 91st birthday.
The habit even led Couric to promote recipes that include lime gelatin (24 grams of sugar per serving) and cupcakes that, with frosting, contain almost 95 grams of sugar each.
It seems Couric doesn’t really believe sugar to be as dangerous as her new film would have you believe. On the one hand, it’s typical elitism — the idea of “sugar for me, but not for thee,” placing Miss Couric above the plebeians who need the government to help them eat.
On the other hand, it shows that the old advice of moderation and personal responsibility still rings true. We need look no further than the hypocrites trying to destroy these notions.
But while Couric continues to peddle food hysteria, let’s enjoy some pictures of what Cocaine Katie pushes in her free time. It all looks quite delicious—in moderation, of course.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2014/05/katie-couric-drug-dealer/0 -
This.
She's a reporter looking for ratings. Ugh.0 -
Yes, because cutting out the evil that is dietary fat worked so well for us. We still have people afraid to eat bacon or biscuits made with lard. I mean...margarine used to be touted as a health food.
I wonder how many THE TRUTH ABOUT FAT documentaries came out back then?0 -
i agree with your statement about the gov't, i said before that i think she was referring to corporations in general which now i see may not be where she was getting at
you literally did the exact same thing with your first response the hers. not to mention you have yet to counter-argue any statements made against said first post, probably because it was showing how ignorant it was
Maybe you should send me a personal message if you have issue? I didnt make outlandish claims, i expressed m,y opinion - and yes, I felt you were rude because of the personal attack, not because i couldnt "back up outlandish claims" as you put it
I was obese - and I didnt know how i got that way, neither did many of my obbese friends. We werent dumb, we werent stupid, we just didnt understand. I didnt call us, obese people, dumb.
The goverment adds sugar to food, yes, ok....so...what more do you want? I don't know what "private businesses" you are talking about??? i dont really care though so there that...
yes, i place, for me personally, sugar in the same catagorie as drugs and alcohol - sure - however you see addictive, like i said, if you look up the definition of addictive, thats how i feel about sugar, for me, personally, IMO.
Your comment about Monsanto makes no sence to me so Im not sure how to respond.... I dont know what you want me to defend. Its my opinion, like i said over and over.... I work in a lab and alter food, so, its just something of interest to me because its essentially my life...
And obviously scaring people gets their attention otherwise they wouldnt do it - this is how the news works, its a bunch of bull **** - all you have to do it watch it to see that.
Smile more - be less miserable :-)
Why should I personally message you? You made your statements here, do you not want to discuss them here? Personally I prefer educating people who might read your post as to how inaccurate it is, so others don't fall for the same lies you have.
Again, the government does not add sugar to food. Private companies make and sell food. This is a fact, it's not up for debate. You're just wrong.
I am a happy, non-miserable person. I called your beliefs dumb, because they are. Same as I would to someone who thinks the Earth is flat. You being wrong about something does not make me an unhappy, mean person.
All the name calling in the world won't make what you said right. And while I may not have held your hand and said, "Aw honey, it's ok. You go right on believing any false thing that makes you happy!" that doesn't make me mean. If anything you could probably use more people in your life who are straight and honest with you, as opposed to feeling that manipulating the facts is ok so long as it inspires some kind of change in your life.
Learn more, believe facts.
I got to go have a meeting with the research leader - apparently my job here doesn't actually exist! All this time... I've been driving all the way here and going through the motions for nothing - I must have been dreaming this entire time - this entire government facility is a facade, a huge holgrame, a figment of my imagination?? Who knows, Im just glad there are so many better educated people out there than I who can point out that what i do for a living is actually just a scene from the god damned movie the matrix. Im going to go eat a candy bar and see if i can fly.
At this point you're just being obtuse. You know the obesity problem in the U.S. is not caused by sugar added to MRE's. Regular citizens don't eat those and even soldiers only eat them in times of need.
Maybe you're ok with misrepresenting facts to make a point. I'm not. I find it to be intellectually dishonest.
I quoted her and read back her words. Maybe I was blunt, but I did not misrepresent what she said.
Here's my stunning counter argument, in case you missed it:
Private companies make the food we buy, not the government. The general public has not gained weight due to eating MRE's with sugar added to them. Because the general public does not eat MRE's.
I don't think you need to use scare tactics to help people. And I think it's even worse to mislead them about sugar.
I think most people who are overweight aren't so clueless that they have no idea how it could have happened.
Claiming that sugar is addictive, and backing that up by saying anything is addictive, destroys the meaning behind the term and is a real insult to people who have struggled with addiction. Don't agree with me? Tell a guy going through heroin withdrawals how similar you are because you like cookies.
Monsanto is irrelevant to this discussion.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong. And understand that I'm engaging in debate, same as you. This does not make me an unhappy, miserable person.
using scare tactics is one of the best ways to motivate despite your personal opinions. ever been told dont do this because this will happen? thats a scare tactic. i obviously havent seen this documentary but to say that sugar in high quantities is bad for you is not misleading someone, its truth
overweight people are most likely not clueless, but most lack the proper knowledge to realize the specifics in their life that they need to change. i was one of those people, so are many others on this site before they got here
i will tell a guy going through heroin withdrawals that its similar, albeit on a much smaller scale. its not an insult. i stubbed my toe this morning and it hurt. is that an insult to war criminals being tortured to say that i was in pain?
monsanto is irrelevant but they brought it up so they could point out that this could lead to better quality foods including the ones grown in our own backyards
debating is one thing, calling someone dumb because of the points they make in a debate is another0 -
and this -
May 13, 2014 12:07 PM
Ludwig, Lustig, Willett and their agendas. sigh...
Trying to be nice, so I'll just leave this here.
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130701151512-23027997-fructose-and-the-follies-of-history
Fructose, and the Follies of History
July 01, 2013
I understand from colleagues at LinkedIn that the very same “sugar is poison, fructose is toxic” message that has made videos go viral and books fly off shelves is wildly popular at the Aspen Ideas Festival this year. Since I have argued for reduced sugar intake the entire span of my two-decade long career in public health, I really hate the job of refuting this message — again. I’m not sure I would bother if my only concern were that the message is wrong. The message is wrong- sugar is not poison- but honestly, that’s the least of my worries.
Still, it’s a good place to start: the message is wrong. Sugar, in general, is not poison. Breast milk contains sugar. The human bloodstream contains sugar, at all times, and the moment it doesn’t, we die.
Human beings have consumed sugar, albeit at low levels, since before our genus Homo, became our species, sapiens. Homo erectus and even earlier ancestors ate fruits and honey, too. Nor are we alone. I trust you, as I, have seen nature programs featuring the audacity of a bear braving bee stings to raid a honeycomb.
Innumerable people living today in diverse cultures eat sugar, albeit at reasonable levels, and suffer no harm. The famous Mediterranean and Blue Zone diets indelibly linked to more years in life, more life in years, and enviably low rates of obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease, also happen to be home to such indulgences as baklava.
So, sugar, clearly, is not poison. An excess of sugar in the body is harmful, certainly- but so is an excess of oxygen, potassium, iron, water, or calcium. Too much of any of these can kill us- but just like the glucose that floats in our blood, so can too little.
So the only rational message about the peril of sugar is that an excess is harmful. But that message is already taken. Paracelsus, the father of modern toxicology, famously said, “the dose makes the poison.” And every nutritionist with half a wit or shred of legitimacy has noted for years that too much sugar is among the salient liabilities of modern eating. So while correct, that message is just not available to be claimed by a renegade genius. Besides, it lacks the visceral impact and conspiracy-theory connotations of “sugar is poison,” and thus would ill serve the cause of creating the next great fad. Time-honored truths and common sense win in the end, but almost never dazzle. They lack the pizzazz to go viral.
If “sugar is poison” is wrong, perhaps “fructose is toxic” is still a viable claim? No, it’s not.
When serious scientists, most recently the widely respected Dr. David Ludwig at Harvard, but others before him, have reviewed the contention, they have found it exaggerated and distorted. The levels of fructose intake invoked to produce end-organ damage in provocative articles do not occur under real-world conditions. Pushed to comparable extremes of dosing, articles about oxygen would reach far grimmer conclusions, concluding the compound is not just toxic, but uniformly lethal over a span of mere days.
Nor under real-world conditions is there clear evidence that fructose is any more harmful than the other sugars with which it is all but inevitably associated. Fructose and glucose, both of which are found in table sugar, both of which are found in high-fructose corn syrup, are metabolized differently- but the best assessments of the implications of that suggest that excesses of both or either can be harmful, as can the associated excesses of calories. Neither is uniquely toxic.
So fructose, which we get in isolation almost exclusively in fruit, is not toxic per se. Here, the valid message becomes that high-fructose corn syrup has long been a cheap source of copious additions of sugar to our food supply, contributing mightily to our excessive intake- and that’s bad. But again, that message is taken, and lacks sex appeal compared to “fructose is toxic.”
As noted, though, the fact that the message is wrong is not what concerns me most. It’s the wrong we are apt to do with the message- wrong that can set public health back a decade- that keeps me up at night.
For this is not a new blunder- it is the quintessential blunder of public health nutrition for the past several decades, and in my opinion, we have a deluge of Frankenfood, and a roiling sea of obesity and diabetes to thank for it. We have been living, and alas dying, on a diet of the unintended consequences of variations on the theme of “there’s just one thing wrong with our food” for years.
Consider what it means if, in fact, sugar is actually poison, and truly not just ‘a’ thing wrong with our diets, but ‘the’ thing.
It means that T. Colin Campbell, and all those who contend that eating too much meat is a problem, are wrong. If sugar is ‘the’ problem, eating meat cannot be. It means that Walter Willett and others who have warned of the harms of trans fat were wasting our time.
It means that Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn and others must be wrong about the importance of dietary fats. It means that advocates for the Paleo diet, which certainly does not exclude fructose per se, are potentially misguided. It means that Atkins and all of the carb-cutting disciples to follow, were also wrong- since a “just cut fructose” message makes no mention of the starches against which Atkins railed. It means that advocates for a Mediterranean diet, which as noted above is apt to include the occasional baklava, must be deluded.
It means that efforts by the Center for Science in the Public Interest to highlight the harms of excess dietary sodium are pointless. It means that David Jenkins and others who have demonstrated the importance of the glycemic load and index of not just sugar but starch-containing foods are wasting our time.
In fact, if any one of these- or a long list of other- concerns about modern eating is the one thing truly wrong with our food, then all of the others are, ipso facto, wrong. If any two of these are correct, then there is no longer just one thing wrong- to the detriment of all that silver bullet, conspiracy theory sex appeal.
The reality of course is that sugar is not ‘the’ thing wrong with our diet, it is just ‘a’ thing wrong with our diet. And that has been getting attention to one degree or another for decades.
So that message lacks viral potential. When confronted with the fact that sugar is not the only problem, Dr. Lustig quickly concedes (as he does in his book, Fat Chance, which I reviewed for the journal, Nature) and claims that his real message is “eat whole foods.” But that’s not his message, because others have long since laid claim to it. Most of us advocating for healthful eating espouse that message, so I’m not sure any one of us can claim it. If, however, we were going to attach it to any one name, the name would be Michael Pollan in return for penning “eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” Certainly, Dr. Lustig would not even be a contender. The use of “sugar is poison” when eager to get attention, and “eat whole foods” when confronted by a jury of peers is a dubious effort to have fructose-free cake and eat it, too.
And only now we come to my gravest concern. Richard Dawkins, arguably the most influential evolutionary biologist since Darwin, has famously said, “there are many more ways to be dead than alive,” referring to the challenges confronted by natural selection. We have our own corollary in public health nutrition: there are many more ways to make food bad, than good.
Only good food is good. It must be holistically good. Food that is bad in some way is, by definition, not good- at least not entirely good.
But food that is bad in any way can be bad. Low-fat food can be bad. Low-carb food can be bad. Organic food can be bad (pure fructose could be organic). GMO-free food can be bad. Gluten-free food can be bad. And, of course, fructose-free, or for that matter sugar-free food, can be bad.
The issue here is that the sexy, contagious messages about nutrition are invariably of the utterly dumbed-down one-nutrient-at-a-time variety. A fixation on any nutrient property in isolation is a gilded invitation to the food industry to give us a whole new parade of products boasting that attribute, no matter what else might be in the mix.
Want an example? At the height of the Atkins’ diet craze, I visited a prominent Entenmann’s display in a local supermarket for a segment of ABC’s 20/20, and found low-carb brownies. The first ingredient listed was partially hydrogenated oil, meaning theses brownies were a concentrated source of trans fat. The banner ad on the front noting that they were “low carb!” did not, of course, mention this.
Nor will “fructose free” banner ads note the liabilities with which they are associated.
I have no doubt that in private corporate enclaves all around the foodscape, executives are not just preparing for the evolution of the “it’s all because of fructose” era, but they are likely rubbing their hands together in glee. They may have been worried that having tried low-fat, low-carb, high-protein, and many other variations on the “just one thing” approach to eating better that we might now actually insist on food that is genuinely better overall. That would leave them no loopholes, and would constitute a true dietary revolution. There is nothing those profiting from the status quo like less.
Fortunately for food manufacturers, and unfortunately for eaters, we are being diverted just before the finish line to that Promised Land. We are now wandering off in another “just one thing” direction, and the opportunities to peddle a new variety of junk to us will proliferate accordingly. Make no mistake, America will still run on Dunkin’ - even if our donuts are now fructose-free. They will be sweetened with glucose, or aspartame, or combinations of these and other sweeteners. And, into the bargain, there will be a new breed of “now fructose free!” banner ads which will confer a halo effect, and invite us to eat twice as many.
Oh, yes- we can forgo fructose, or just-cut-sugar, and get fatter and sicker. My worry is that’s just what we are aiming to do.
Those who don’t learn from the follies of history are destined to repeat them. Yes, some will get rich and famous along the way, every time. But one in three of us will get diabetes. And there you have my real concern with the “sugar is poison” boondoggle. It comes with a price tag public health simply cannot afford to pay.
UPDATE: Proof That Food Makers Are Responding
Some may think my concern that a 'fructose is the enemy' fixation plays into the hands of food manufacturers is theoretical. It is not! Products invoking a halo effect with a front-of-pack banner ad asserting the removal of high-fructose corn syrup are already here. These images show an alleged 'maple syrup' that contains no maple syrup! The first ingredient is corn syrup. But the front of the bottle implies a benefit because it isn't 'high-fructose' corn syrup. If such claims did not boost sales, companies would not spend money on reformulating their labels. So there you have it: we fixate on fructose, manufacturers exploit that fixation, and sell us junk obscured by an implied, but meaningless, halo. This cannot happen when we focus on overall nutritional quality rather than just one ingredient. So let's do that -- finally.
-fin0 -
i saw her on the daily show being interviewed and she was talking about eating healthily, looking at what you are putting in your mouth, looking at the labels, trying to reduce your sugar intake, maybe cooking your own foods and teaching kids how to eat more healthily.
not sure what all the fuss is about, if it affects people positively to improve their diet and reduce sugar intake (whilst i understand from the pages of arguments may or may not be the real reason) what does it matter... surely anything to improve the diets of the kids in america and reduce the obesity and diabetes problems should be applauded.
And if you think she is wrong, create a documentary showing where she is wrong and how to eat better so the american people.... nay the global population can learn from your experience, knowledge, presentation skills and healthy outlook on life.
</rant>0 -
Calories are calories, if you eat too many of them you will gain weight. You can lose weight just eating Twinkies (ignoring the obvious lack of vital nutrients) if you eat them at a calorie deficit. Carbs are not the enemy and they are in fact essential.0
-
i saw her on the daily show being interviewed and she was talking about eating healthily, looking at what you are putting in your mouth, looking at the labels, trying to reduce your sugar intake, maybe cooking your own foods and teaching kids how to eat more healthily.
not sure what all the fuss is about, if it affects people positively to improve their diet and reduce sugar intake (whilst i understand from the pages of arguments may or may not be the real reason) what does it matter... surely anything to improve the diets of the kids in america and reduce the obesity and diabetes problems should be applauded.
And if you think she is wrong, create a documentary showing where she is wrong and how to eat better so the american people.... nay the global population can learn from your experience, knowledge, presentation skills and healthy outlook on life.
</rant>
Well said.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions