Salt, Sugar, Fat
Options
Replies
-
It also has helped me in the grocery store. I see why the put high fat ,sugar ,and salty products when you enter the store.
At both my mainstream grocery and my WF you enter in the vegetable section. Is this really so unusual?
I live in Mexico City and enter through the soft drink aisles on one side and alcoholic beverages on the other. We have Walmart here and they all have electronics and washers, refrigerators etc by the entrances. Food is always in the very back of the store. Maybe this is, because many Mexicans can only buy what they need from day-to-day.0 -
I am the same way! I want something sweet then when I'm done eating it, I want something salty! Once I satisfy one craving another pops right up.0
-
I've read it and I think his work is poorly sourced in regards to fat, and the studies he does source are out of context. If anything, Americans should be eating much, much more fat (and less sugar, and less carbs, which he mentions). However, his look at marketing and advertising was spot-on - capitalism is an interesting thing in that it supposedly keeps the market healthy, but it does absolutely nothing to keep humans healthy.
Haroon - I agree that everyone is responsible for their own decisions, but big food corportations make it very hard for the average joe to make good decisions due to deliberately putting out false information. A small example, it's pretty common knowledge that peanut butter is healthy, right? It's a great source of healthy fats, fiber, and a little protein. However, almost all peanut butter in the grocery store, and certainly the kind that most americans are used to, are modified heavily with sugar and trans fats are actually very unhealthy. A busy mom or a college kid on a budget is just gonna swipe it off the shelf, believing they are making a responsible choice.
My Skippy Peanut Butter label says 0 trans fats. And 3 grams of sugar. Hardly horrifying.0 -
I prefer my nutritional information from people with actual degrees in nutrition (or related fields) rather than reporters selling books.
To each their own though.
This isn't a book that was written to instruct people on how/what to eat. It is a history of American industrial food production over the past century, which can reasonably be written by a reporter, as it doesn't require a degree in nutrition to document the actions of corporations and the government on this topic.0 -
Books like that lead people the wrong way. I think the whole post-modernism about marketing from fast food chains and supermarket "tricks of the trade" has been blown way out of proportion. It's up to you whether you are responsible enough to ignore something in a supermarket aisle or whether you buy it and blame clever advertising methods to get you to buy it. In the same way one mgiht give in to peer pressure to smoke or do drugs, it's your fault if you get addicted. You should have been more responsible and just say no. It's a similar thing when the media blew up the whole "Nutella claims to be part of a healthy breakfast but is really just full of sugar and oil". If people had any basic common sense they would turn the jar around and read the ingredients themselves.
Ice cream, cheesecake and Nutella aren't "bad for you" at all. Unless you are diabetic and need to avoid large amount of sugar or your doctor has told you to reduce your level of sugar then Nutella, cheesecake or ice cream is fine to eat. From my experience those who tell you to eat "100% 'clean', 100% of the time otherwise you won't get 100% results because you didn't follow the diet and training like I told you to" are those who have a huge popularity through social media, eg fitness models who are juicing their brains out and claiming to be drug free. Even Robert Lustig's bitter truth about sugar is just some coke and bull to get you to go to his lectures, buy his articles and buy his books. His research has been heavily criticised and all he did, and all he has done, is refer people back to his studies.
In a broader sense, it's up to you what newspaper you read. If it's a tabloid rather than a broadsheet, or whether it's a middle market daily rather than a broadsheet. You need to take responsibility for your actions come to an informed decision about whether you want to spend your time reading a piece of garbage of a newspaper or piece of journalism or whether you want to read a relatively unbiased opinion based on the accepted facts at the time of the event.
Did you even read the book? I didn't either, but you sound more like you're making a strawman argument than actually responding to the book. And yes, ice-cream, nutella, cheesecake, etc., are in fact "bad" for you. Sure, they aren't bad in small quantities. But any person with any knowledge of nutrition knows that you should limit those types of foods to less than 20-30% of your total daily calories, and fill the other 70-80% with foods are "healthy." I personally eat at least one of those three "bad" foods you mentioned every single day, but I understand that they aren't doing much for my overall nutrition. In order to be healthy and achieve my goals I need to eat mostly healthy foods.
You also give the food industry a pass by saying "well I might have put the pipe in front of his face but I didn't make him smoke it." Sure, ultimately the responsibility is with the individual. But many people are mislead by false advertising that tricks people into think junk food is healthy.
For example, do you think it's okay for the food industry to put "heart healthy" labels on foods like Honey Smacks?0 -
I prefer my nutritional information from people with actual degrees in nutrition (or related fields) rather than reporters selling books.
To each their own though.
This isn't a book that was written to instruct people on how/what to eat. It is a history of American industrial food production over the past century, which can reasonably be written by a reporter, as it doesn't require a degree in nutrition to document the actions of corporations and the government on this topic.
Ahhhh ok - thanks for correcting me.0 -
Two big takeaways from the book:
1) There is nothing accidental about the way food products are positioned in the store or otherwise marketed to you. And every single ingredient is meticulously studied prior to being processed into the food - the manufacturer understands exactly how it will effect you in terms of taste, appearance, and digestion.
2) Almost none of the big food industry leaders that brought these products to market will eat or drink any of their own products themselves.0 -
Good piece on this here. (I know it's old but I'm interested in it.)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/food-cravings-engineered-by-industry-1.1395225
0 -
I... can't decide how I feel about this piece.
I'm not overly upset by the food industry trying to make better products, but yes -- they do go way, way too far when they want to manipulate flavor satiety to make it so it's not flavorful enough to be satiating so you'll want to eat more...
IF you lack impulse control.
And that's where my mixed feelings come in.
We're not helpless victims here.
The obesity problem can't be laid at the feet of any one bad actor.0 -
In Duhigg's book Habit, he talks about how Febreze market share soared when it was associated with a "reward" (a little spritz after cleaning up). Shampoo is foamy when it doesn't have to because we associate it with "clean". Similarly, toothpaste is minty and foamy. These all have additives that contribute to their appeal.
I was so very impressed when the 100 calorie snacks came out. Less food for more money! Somebody got a bonus cheque for coming up with that one.
When I began reading cereal labels for sugar (to help control my diabetes) I got so angry with the Special K line of products, marketed as a diet cereal. Higher in sugar, lower in fiber. A lousy diabetic's choice. Their "high protein" choices are little better, as the bitterness of the protein is masked with sugar. No big surprise. I'll guarantee Special K runs taste tests to make sure their product hits a home run out of the park. They need their R & D budget justified!
I find it takes a few weeks to adapt to a food lower in sugar and salt. Can a company afford to wait out a few weeks to bring a customer around to their product? Probably not. So we get the "instant hit" foods that tingle and satisfy. And the companies get steady profits that tingle and satisfy.0 -
Two big takeaways from the book:
1) There is nothing accidental about the way food products are positioned in the store or otherwise marketed to you. And every single ingredient is meticulously studied prior to being processed into the food - the manufacturer understands exactly how it will effect you in terms of taste, appearance, and digestion.
I mean, isn't that obvious though? Is it really a shock that food is made to be as tasteful as possible and as marketable as possible to the masses? The whole point of owning a business is to get people to buy your product. I don't see anything nefarious about it.0 -
When I read this thread title, I thought, "Frosting!"
Nope, didn't read the book.
I'm sure the people who sell food do try to make food that tastes as good as possible and will make people want to buy more and more of it. I have no problem with that. People get their potato chips and those guys get their money. Win-win.
Although I'm all about healthy eating for myself, I'm not out to make the whole world give up their Oreos, you know? Everyone has to do what they feel is right for them. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It also has helped me in the grocery store. I see why the put high fat ,sugar ,and salty products when you enter the store.
At both my mainstream grocery and my WF you enter in the vegetable section. Is this really so unusual?
No, it isn't. But it's not very shopper-friendly. I like to get my frozen stuff and produce last. The less time it takes from cooler to cooler, the better. So, I'd like the produce to come last.
Nobody writes a book about shopping, lol.
It does come in very handy when I just need produce, though. Much quicker in-and-out. So bonus points there. 0 -
Two big takeaways from the book:
1) There is nothing accidental about the way food products are positioned in the store or otherwise marketed to you. And every single ingredient is meticulously studied prior to being processed into the food - the manufacturer understands exactly how it will effect you in terms of taste, appearance, and digestion.
I mean, isn't that obvious though? Is it really a shock that food is made to be as tasteful as possible and as marketable as possible to the masses? The whole point of owning a business is to get people to buy your product. I don't see anything nefarious about it.
After all their shenanigans, "What happens is that your brain gets fooled into thinking the calories have vanished and you’re much more apt to keep eating before the brain sends you a signal …you've had enough," author Michael Moss said."
You don't think that's a little problematic in the context of an obesity epidemic?
0 -
Problematic in what way?0
-
Our big department stores have moved produce right up to the entrance. I think this is appealing to the public's expressed desire to "eat healthy". Right next door is the snack aisle.
Costco rather lines up it's promotional items for the week. This past week it was pumpkin pie (Thanksgiving here in Canada).0 -
This is what happens when a corporation fails to read and respond to the market.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/missing-the-mark-5-reasons-why-target-failed-in-canad/article22459819/
That's how we end up with stupid products like fat-reduced peanut butter, or fat-free Jell-O.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Problematic in what way?
In that their explicit aim is to engineer food taste and texture to override our natural sense of satiety, which would kick in if the food products weren't "blended" etc ? Which makes "willpower" a much more difficult thing to engage? Which means that we're much more likely to overeat those products? Which is likely to contribute to obesity?0 -
Haven't read the book but I know that the 3 ingredients used to make processed good taste good are salt, sugar, and fat. Any food that is labelled as "low" in one of these products will be higher in one or both of the other 2. 100%of the time. Guaranteed. Read your labels!0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »
The obesity problem can't be laid at the feet of any one bad actor.
I don't know, Brendan Frazier is a REALLY bad actor. Are you sure we can't blame this on him?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions