Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

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.

Its not realistic. Sugar is added to everything to make it taste better, so that you will buy it. Why to they do all the taste tests? For example, do you expect you french fries to be coated in sugar? ..probably not...but if you buy them from McDonalds or the store..they are. It make them brown up and look better. I don't know about you , but if I was making fries at home I wouldn't be coating them in sugar first. So how is the consumer supposed to know other than to avoid all processed foods?

Do you have any sources to support your claims?

Source: McDonalds from their Transparency Campaign

The 17 ingredients in their fries
Potatoes, canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, safflower oil, natural flavour (vegetable source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain colour), citric acid (preservative), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent) and cooked in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with THBQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane) and salt (silicoaluminate, dextrose, potassium iodide).

Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/mcdonalds-transparency-campaign-revealed-17-ingredients-in-their-french-fries

I dont think sugar is making us fat. I think excessive calorie consumption is. I did however have both a packaged granola bar and frosted sugar cookie today, so take that for what its worth.

Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.

I do not agree with banning or governments or anybody telling us what we can or cannot eat - however I do beleive in informing the customer so they can make informed choices.
Thus detailed labelling on all food/drink products showing the sugar, calorie(or kiliojoule) sodium etc per 100ml/ 100g. The alcohol content per 100ml on alcoholic products.

I am confused as to whose response this is (is the quoting screwed up?), but I'm all in favor of labeling. However, we already have this information on the labels. Is someone claiming we do not?

as companies usually wont do this voluntarlly I am in favour of compulsory labelling - like we have here in Australia, in fact.

And in the US.

I also agree that total calorie consumption is what causes obesity - however for many people increased sugar consumption is a major factor in their over consumption of calories.

Sure, but just like you have to be an idiot to not get that adding lots of butter makes something have far more calories or that deep dish pizza or a double Whopper with large fries are high in calories, people who eat lots of sugary treats know (or should know) that they are consuming lots of non-nutrient dense calories. They just don't care. Heck, I used to buy a cookie at Potbelly's (local chain that, despite the name, has reasonably low calorie options) along with my sandwich. The calorie count was right in front of me, yet I knew it would interfere with my enjoyment of the cookie, so I chose not to look. Is Potbelly's responsible for selling the cookies? Or was I? Obviously, me. And now if I on rare occasion want a cookie (or half), I choose to do so within my calories and there's nothing unhealthy about it. (Also, the actual calories in a cookie owe more to butter and then flour than sugar--it's kind of interesting to look at the actual breakdown. It's just sugar is the trendy bad guy.)

Sure it's realistic. Do some people choose not to? Sure, but that's their responsibility. I, personally, would rather live in a world where I am free to make mistakes or engage in actions that some people apparently think are "unhealthy" (like eating some ice cream on occasion), then be told by the government (i.e., well-meaning people like you, who think we should hold corporations liable for selling ice cream, it seems) that I cannot make that choice.

I do not agree with banning or governments or anybody telling us what we can or cannot eat - however I do beleive in informing the customer so they can make informed choices.
Thus detailed labelling on all food/drink products showing the sugar, calorie(or kiliojoule) sodium etc per 100ml/ 100g. The alcohol content per 100ml on alcoholic products.

I am confused as to whose response this is (is the quoting screwed up?), but I'm all in favor of labeling. However, we already have this information on the labels. Is someone claiming we do not?

as companies usually wont do this voluntarlly I am in favour of compulsory labelling - like we have here in Australia, in fact.

And in the US.

I also agree that total calorie consumption is what causes obesity - however for many people increased sugar consumption is a major factor in their over consumption of calories.

Sure, but just like you have to be an idiot to not get that adding lots of butter makes something have far more calories or that deep dish pizza or a double Whopper with large fries are high in calories, people who eat lots of sugary treats know (or should know) that they are consuming lots of non-nutrient dense calories. They just don't care. Heck, I used to buy a cookie at Potbelly's (local chain that, despite the name, has reasonably low calorie options) along with my sandwich. The calorie count was right in front of me, yet I knew it would interfere with my enjoyment of the cookie, so I chose not to look. Is Potbelly's responsible for selling the cookies? Or was I? Obviously, me. And now if I on rare occasion want a cookie (or half), I choose to do so within my calories and there's nothing unhealthy about it. (Also, the actual calories in a cookie owe more to butter and then flour than sugar--it's kind of interesting to look at the actual breakdown. It's just sugar is the trendy bad guy.)

You mean since the advent of nutritional transparency people are gaining weight.:bigsmile:

Oh and big corporations didn't have any influence the food pyramid, and they never gave donations to American Heart Association, and they don't send people to conferences just to heckle scientists in presentations. Get your heads out of the sand people....

Look, I have a friend who works at a large food company (I won't name here) that produces a very sweet chocolate liquid that goes into white milk to make chocolate milk quick and easy at home. He is the brand manager and relies on this job to feed his family. Once he confided in me that there is a new mandate to reduce the sugar in this drink because they know it is bad for kids and it's been marketed to children and parents as a way to include "healthy milk" into the diet. So he has to figure out how to reduce the sugar but he is facing the ethical dilemma knowing he has to up the nasty other ingredients to reduce the sugar. He doesn't want that to happen because he knows its also the wrong thing to promote kids but on the other hand, he knows if it doesn't taste sweet, the competitor's product will taste better. What to do?

Well, the reality is they will keep selling this product either way because the corporation doesn't care about your health, just the almighty dollar. Yes, you need to be informed... but the reality is you won't be as informed as you need to be because some giant corp who relies on consumer ignorance will spend whatever it takes to keep their shareholders happy.

Keep your right to choose crap... but don't care about the kid facing all the choices at the convenience store who can't decipher all the facts?

Good report from a reputable investigative news agency, The Fifth Estate http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2013-2014/the-secrets-of-sugar

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

While I would stop short of saying that sugar causes diabetes, sugar consumption is surely one of the factors in developing the disease. There is a demonstrated link between the consumption of high fructose corn syrup and Type II. Some obesity researchers now refer to "diabesity"--not because obesity causes diabetes but because they share a common cause. Obesity does contribute to inflammation in the body and they know that inflammation is behind a host of degenerative diseases, including Type II. But, the consumption of sugar contributes to chronically elevated blood glucose levels and it is that which contributes to inflammation in the body. Researchers are now beginning to refer to Alzheimer's Disease as "Type 3" diabetes, because, again, inflammation caused by chronically high blood glucose is part of the picture. That is why there is a link between "diabesity" and dementia.

ETA: By the way, the fasting blood glucose numbers that are "normal" now would have been considered "elevated" in the 1920s when they first began to track blood glucose figures widely.

Yep, the tin foil hat crowd has arrived smh

It is hardly a conspiracy theory to look at sugar consumption and its effects on health. Why would you throw that into the discussion?

This idea that we are all so educated, intelligent and able to make good decisions on our food is just not realistic.

So basically you're saying that the population is too stupid to do their own research and draw their own conclusions and that we need other people (such as this documentary) to tell us what to think and what decisions to make.

No thank you. I'll do my own research and make my own decisions.

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.

I eat no added sugar and always keep my carbohydrates to less than 150 grams per day. I have also lost 66 pounds and have not gained an ounce in four years. Make of it what you will.

Zero weight fluctuations is very hard to believe. Even at 66 years old, even if you've had your ovaries removed. Female hormones cause weight fluctuations.

Yep, the tin foil hat crowd has arrived smh

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

Actually, I don't really see how that correlates. I've lost 8lbs in the last 3 weeks. How does the ticker tell you that?

Most of the people who say that sugar doesn't make you fat and that we need to be responsible for ourselves have reached our goals. Not saying visible abs means you are healthy (although my blood tests show I'm very healthy), but we aren't trying to find a demon to blame for having been obese.

I don't need the government to tell companies to make healthier foods or remove sugar. I am responsible for what I put in my body. I can eat a homemade hamburger and baked potato or I could pick up McDonalds. I do both. I find balance. When I was obese I knew that eating fast food twice a day was probably a bad idea and that eating snack cakes every night was probably the reason I was gaining weight. I didn't need the government to regulate my food, I needed to make better choices. Now I have fast food when I can make it fit my calories and snack cakes when I want a treat. Personal responsibility.

No one here is denying that personal responsibility counts for a lot. Eat all the sugar you want, but let's be conscious of the fact that high sugar consumption is very deadly for a number of people and often, they are simply unaware of how much of it they are eating or how deadly it might be for them. Many obese individuals simply are not young and healthy enough to be able to launch themselves into an exercise program that will bring their blood glucose levels down (as perhaps you have) and they need some help on the dietary end of things. Avoiding added sugar and starch will help them to slim down so that they can begin some modest exercise.

For those that say they don't need the government, good for you! But the government has absolutely had an impact on what is available to eat and what our perceptions of "healthy" is. Typical American idealism that you can live on your own island and there is no influence around you and everyone has 'equal opportunity'. Blah blah blah. But you probably work out like crazy, feel starved on your low calorie diet when you need to lose weight because you simply believe that a calorie is just energy and it doesn't come from a food source that has biochemical impact on your body -- can give satiety or not, impact a hormone, improve performance. Calorie in calorie out end of story?

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid but there are 8 year old kids with allowance money trying to decide between the blue or red Slushie and it's "fine" because the FDA approved the red dye, the government subsidized the corn that made the HFCS that's perfectly safe because it's low fat.

You can't trust the government or big corp because they are often one and the same when it comes to food politics.

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.

I eat no added sugar and always keep my carbohydrates to less than 150 grams per day. I have also lost 66 pounds and have not gained an ounce in four years. Make of it what you will.

Zero weight fluctuations is very hard to believe. Even at 66 years old, even if you've had your ovaries removed. Female hormones cause weight fluctuations.

I only weigh myself once a month and it is always the same. During the last year, I have lost a few pounds, but, interestingly, I have lost an entire dress size, so I assume that I have continued to shed body fat. I lost my obsession with the scale a long time ago. As I continue to rebuild muscle that has been lost over the years, I continue to see improvement in all parameters of health. I repeat, make of it what you will.

Yep, the tin foil hat crowd has arrived smh

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

Actually, I don't really see how that correlates. I've lost 8lbs in the last 3 weeks. How does the ticker tell you that?

Most of the people who say that sugar doesn't make you fat and that we need to be responsible for ourselves have reached our goals. Not saying visible abs means you are healthy (although my blood tests show I'm very healthy), but we aren't trying to find a demon to blame for having been obese.

I don't need the government to tell companies to make healthier foods or remove sugar. I am responsible for what I put in my body. I can eat a homemade hamburger and baked potato or I could pick up McDonalds. I do both. I find balance. When I was obese I knew that eating fast food twice a day was probably a bad idea and that eating snack cakes every night was probably the reason I was gaining weight. I didn't need the government to regulate my food, I needed to make better choices. Now I have fast food when I can make it fit my calories and snack cakes when I want a treat. Personal responsibility.

No one here is denying that personal responsibility counts for a lot. Eat all the sugar you want, but let's be conscious of the fact that high sugar consumption is very deadly for a number of people and often, they are simply unaware of how much of it they are eating or how deadly it might be for them. Many obese individuals simply are not young and healthy enough to be able to launch themselves into an exercise program that will bring their blood glucose levels down (as perhaps you have) and they need some help on the dietary end of things. Avoiding added sugar and starch will help them to slim down so that they can begin some modest exercise.

So because some people aren't concerned with their health enough to do research or even listen to their doctor we all need to face more government regulation? I think instead of demonizing certain foods (like sugar) it would be better just to provide overall education. We could start with Dr. Oz cutting air time to the bogus supplements and just give people solid dietary information.

That is a bit of a red herring as I don't think anyone here is arguing for more government regulation. Instead, I expect that most of us are on the same page in hoping for better health education and education in general.