Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

I did watch that and I am alarmed that more people don't take it all serious. Many people act like we are being silly when we worry about the food we eat and more importantly still the food we feed our kids. I quit Diet Coke and cut sugar out of my life and I don't miss it,

There is always somebody hyping a reason for hysteria ... and always people who fall for it.

Just like there will always be cavalier people who take the fall so that the prudent ones can survive by learning from them. Thanks for that.

$61 million+ a year in taxpayer dollars is used to subsidize the sugar industry...a nutrition-less and high-calorie food.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/FY06budsum.pdf

The Agriculture Department lost $280 million of taxpayer dollars on the sugar program in fiscal year 2013.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/11/19/sugar-free-trade-sours-for-taxpayers/

The U.S. spends $190 billion+ (that's billion with a on obesity-related health care expenses
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/

Washington University: "The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods."
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/news/summits/poverty_obesity/drewnowski_pov.pdf


Imagine what a different world it would be if $341 million dollars last year had been used to make healthy low calorie foods like fruit and veggies available for less than the $1 menu at McDonalds?

Conclusion of the study "USDA’s Economic Research Service calculated that a 10-percent price discount at the retail level
would encourage low-income households to increase their consumption of fruits by 2.1 to 5.2
percent (from 0.96 cup to 0.98-1.01 cups) and vegetables by 2.1 to 4.9 percent (from 1.43 cups to
1.46-1.50 cups)."
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/185379/err70_reportsummary.pdf




http://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/news/summits/poverty_obesity/drewnowski_pov.pdf

If this was in combination with the poor starving because they couldn't afford to buy enough energy I. The form of food I may be behind you, but people are not starving they are overweight. This means the energy:cost of food is a pointless argument. If people spent the same amount on nutrient rich and energy poorer food they would be health. Instead they consume more energy than they need because it's cheaper!

It's like people who have 20 to spend on gas. They could spend it on premium gas and top off their tank perfectly, or on regular which will over fill their tank and spill some out on the ground. I don't feel bad for people who chose to waste their money on more energy than they need, even if the energy is cheaper per unit than more nutritious options!

I did watch that and I am alarmed that more people don't take it all serious. Many people act like we are being silly when we worry about the food we eat and more importantly still the food we feed our kids. I quit Diet Coke and cut sugar out of my life and I don't miss it,

Your profile says that you love the Dr. Oz show. That speaks volumes.

Your profile pic is your bare chest. I wish that didn't speak volumes.

Mmmmmmm I think it sings!!

I did watch that and I am alarmed that more people don't take it all serious. Many people act like we are being silly when we worry about the food we eat and more importantly still the food we feed our kids. I quit Diet Coke and cut sugar out of my life and I don't miss it,

Your profile says that you love the Dr. Oz show. That speaks volumes.

Your profile pic is your bare chest. I wish that didn't speak volumes.

Weak

Are you deliberately trying to give me more material?

Imagine what a different world it would be if $341 million dollars last year had been used to make healthy low calorie foods like fruit and veggies available for less than the $1 menu at McDonalds?

Sorry, but you're making the speculating that people are going to eat better because it's more available and cheaper? Hiking of taxes on cigarettes and booze didn't dissuade a lot of people to stop smoking and drinking. People will pay more for things they WANT.
Unless one obliterated or banned processed foods altogether and made the above the only OPTION, people will take the option THEY PREFER.
If the money you mentioned was spent more on EDUCATION (remember actual nutrition classes in school) on eating correctly and it's advantages, chances are people will make better decisions.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I did watch that and I am alarmed that more people don't take it all serious. Many people act like we are being silly when we worry about the food we eat and more importantly still the food we feed our kids. I quit Diet Coke and cut sugar out of my life and I don't miss it,

Your profile says that you love the Dr. Oz show. That speaks volumes.

Your profile pic is your bare chest. I wish that didn't speak volumes.

Weak

Are you deliberately trying to give me more material?

Ironic for sure.

Unbelievably so.

My opinion is that the documentary has it's own agenda. Sure too much sugar is not good for you. Too much of anything isn't good for you but the rise in obesity is directly linked to the fall in activity in my opinion.

I was in the gym one day and it struck me that my great grandparents would probably find it amusing that people go to a place with equipment to get exercise. They worked in the fields, they chopped wood, they were active! Even from when I was a child, I see a decline in activity.

When I was a child (I'm 39 now), I used to go outside as soon as my mom would let me and I wouldn't come back in unless I was made to. I seriously even pee'd my pants for fear of going inside to use the bathroom would result in my mom keeping me inside and not being able to play with my friends. We roller skated on the street, biked, played town chase, hop scotch. You name it we did it!

Today, I force our 8 and 9 year olds to go outside. If I didn't make them go, they would happily sit in front of their game system, iPod, etc. They look so sad as they put their electronics down and head out the door. Sometimes they even sneak back in the back door a few minutes later to resume their electronic activity only to be shooed back out to play. That my friends is why people are fat!

I agree with this. It's so strange on such beautiful days, and evenings, we'll be the only family for two blocks who's outside.

There are social factors in play here. The fact that mothers are not home to watch the neighborhood is part of the problem. Those were more innocent times when you didn't need to fear that the teenage boy living behind you was a pedophile in the making. (The molestation of young children is the number one reason for teenaged boys being incarcerated.) I agree that lack exercise is part of the problem but those who have the means make sure that their children get plenty of safe exercise (did you know that there are "Cross-Fit" classes for children?). Obesity is becoming a mark of poverty just as it used to be a mark of wealth in the past. (Queen Elizabeth I, died with a bloated body and blackened teeth from eating too much sugar. )

The real problem is chronically high blood glucose. Eating too much sugar is just one influence--although a powerful one. Lack of exercise is another (although consuming sugar in itself can cause sluggishness). And eating too much in general is another (and sugar has a role here because of the way it is metabolized--just as alcohol does).

You've outdone even yourself with this one. Congratulations.

Would you like to speak to the point that you disagree with or are you just interested in sniping? Do you always resort to sarcasm when you can't think of a cogent response, S.O.B.?

Arguing with crazy is pointless. I'll stick to laughing at you.

Is this a conga line? You stole the words right out of my mouth.

Sorry, but you're making the speculating that people are going to eat better because it's more available and cheaper? Hiking of taxes on cigarettes and booze didn't dissuade a lot of people to stop smoking and drinking. People will pay more for things they WANT.
Unless one obliterated or banned processed foods altogether and made the above the only OPTION, people will take the option THEY PREFER.
If the money you mentioned was spent more on EDUCATION (remember actual nutrition classes in school) on eating correctly and it's advantages, chances are people will make better decisions.

I agree with your assertion. Education is critical and lacking. But keep in mind by making this connection your also saying unhealthy high calorie foods are as addictive as cigarettes and alcohol. Why then is obesity not treated like an addiction or a disease? Why is it ok to advertise high calorie/sugary cereal to overweight children but not cigarettes? Both are promoting unhealthy "options" that are easy to "want".

If this kind of food is addictive - why are we spending so many million dollars a year to subsidize it? We don't subsidize cigarettes or alcohol production.

If this was in combination with the poor starving because they couldn't afford to buy enough energy I. The form of food I may be behind you, but people are not starving they are overweight. This means the energy:cost of food is a pointless argument. If people spent the same amount on nutrient rich and energy poorer food they would be health. Instead they consume more energy than they need because it's cheaper!

It's like people who have 20 to spend on gas. They could spend it on premium gas and top off their tank perfectly, or on regular which will over fill their tank and spill some out on the ground. I don't feel bad for people who chose to waste their money on more energy than they need, even if the energy is cheaper per unit than more nutritious options!

How do we account for the marked difference in weight based on income level if its not due to cost? Are low income families dumber? More lazy? Who works harder (physically) a farm laborer or a radiologist? Wouldn't it stand to reason if the cost of high calorie foods was higher (no longer affordable) and low calorie foods were lower (more affordable) that they would eat less calories by default? If higher income families have more money to spend why aren't they even fatter than low income families because they can afford more calories? (As it was 200 years ago?)

Also your ignoring satiety. The high calorie/high sugar foods promote overeating (as evidenced in the studies I cited). If they can't afford the kind of foods (high fiber and unprocessed) that make them feel full, they're going to overeat by default.

Sorry, but you're making the speculating that people are going to eat better because it's more available and cheaper? Hiking of taxes on cigarettes and booze didn't dissuade a lot of people to stop smoking and drinking. People will pay more for things they WANT.
Unless one obliterated or banned processed foods altogether and made the above the only OPTION, people will take the option THEY PREFER.
If the money you mentioned was spent more on EDUCATION (remember actual nutrition classes in school) on eating correctly and it's advantages, chances are people will make better decisions.

I agree with your assertion. Education is critical and lacking. But keep in mind by making this connection your also saying unhealthy high calorie foods are as addictive as cigarettes and alcohol. Why then is obesity not treated like an addiction or a disease? Why is it ok to advertise high calorie/sugary cereal to overweight children but not cigarettes? Both are promoting unhealthy "options" that are easy to "want".

I think that the problem with equating sugar/"unhealthy" foods to cigarettes and alcohol is that there is no consensus/universality on sugar's impact on people like there is with cigarettes and alcohol. Yes, some people have issues with sugar. I actually do agree with a lot of you that sugar can be/feel addicting for some people.

However, sugar doesn't effect everyone in an "addictive" manner. Lots of people can eat sugar without craving it. People can eat cupcakes and drink sodas without ever becoming overweight. With sugar, there is not a universal impact on the human body. Cigarettes and alcohol have similar effects on everyone, even if some people are more susceptible to becoming addicted to them (which can be driven my emotional/mental issues rather than just a physical predisposition).

Attacking sugar is ineffective because you're coming at the problem from the wrong angle. People like sugar, and they like to consume the foods they like. We can't tell people not to eat a cupcake because we think it's bad for them. It's up to them to decide if the cupcake is something that they want to eat.

We need to educate people/make sure that the whole message is conveyed.