Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.
Also there are people who set small goals and re-adjust their tickers after they reach that small goal.
Your logic fails in analyzing that group.
and there are people like me whose tickers dont show big weight loss amounts - not becasue we are struggling with weight loss and are still obese - but because we were never obese in the first place and didnt have a lot to lose.
Im not sure how that puts me on the unsuccessful side of the divide :indifferent:
that was kind of my concern with the comment- but after talking to her I realized she implied it differently than I read it- because I don't have big ticker numbers- and never have- and never will- because despite my love of sugar- I have never been obese- a couple pounds over weight- but always athletic and no one ever considered me fat.0 -
$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
"Rising consumption of sugary drinks has been a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. (4) A typical 20-ounce soda contains 15 to 18 teaspoons of sugar and upwards of 240 calories. A 64-ounce fountain cola drink could have up to 700 calories. (5) People who drink this “liquid candy” do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food and do not compensate by eating less. "
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
"Children and youth in the US averaged 224 calories per day from sugary beverages in 1999 to 2004—nearly 11% of their daily calorie intake. (15) From 1989 to 2008, calories from sugary beverages increased by 60% in children ages 6 to 11, from 130 to 209 calories per day, and the percentage of children consuming them rose from 79% to 91%. "
Source: Wang YC, Bleich SN, Gortmaker SL. Increasing caloric contribution from sugar-sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juices among US children and adolescents, 1988-2004. Pediatrics. 2008;121:e1604-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18519465
Source:
Lasater G, Piernas C, Popkin BM. Beverage patterns and trends among school-aged children in the US, 1989-2008. Nutr J. 2011;10:103.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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!$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
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!0 -
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.
Weak0 -
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.0 -
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.
Honestly, I love (< sarcasm there in case some doesn't have the sarcasm font) that people still think that Dr. Oz is the purveyor of health and wellness... particularly after he got caught lying about weight loss supplements.... by CONGRESS. But I digress.0 -
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?0 -
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.?0 -
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.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?
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 nutrition0 -
Ironic for sure.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?0 -
Ironic for sure.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?
Unbelievably so.0 -
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,
I don't watch food documentaries because documentaries of this nature are commonly only part of the story... The story that the narrator wants to tell. It's rarely the whole picture... and all it does is scare people into changing their behaviors and tug at your emotional side. Demonizing food and even the food industry, isn't going to stop the obesity rates. Teaching people the real value of food and how to prepare and consume it will. Obesity rates are high, not because boxed food has sugar in it so much as the fact that we as a society have gotten lazier, more sedentary. I myself, have gained an extra 10 pounds... not because of the foods I eat so much as I am not moving near as much as I did a year ago. I went from working in a building where I could park a block away and would climb the stairs constantly... to the 6th floor of an 8 story building where it's necessary to park closer. That is why I'm gaining weight... not because I enjoy a Dr Pepper and a Payday candy bar. We get fatter when we don't use the calories we consume. And while I'm taking steps to reverse this gain... it's not going to come by me abstaining from a favorite snack from time to time... it's going to come by me moderating that snack and moving my butt.0 -
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.0 -
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.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?
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
More education regarding nutrition and activity needs would be a great step in addressing the obesity problem, even without altering the way that foods are advertised. If people are making the decision to eat a particular food with intention and the knowledge that it is low-nutrient and high calorie, then that's their business.
What bothers me (and stood out to me while I was watching this film) is that there are people who believe that certain packaged foods will help them lose weight simply because the food is labeled with misleading health statements. All we can do is make sure that people have the facts they need to make the decisions that work for them.0 -
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.0 -
Well the same could be said for the diet industry as a whole. Products for weight loss is a billion dollar industry and they get you to think that they need their product to be successful.More education regarding nutrition and activity needs would be a great step in addressing the obesity problem, even without altering the way that foods are advertised. If people are making the decision to eat a particular food with intention and the knowledge that it is low-nutrient and high calorie, then that's their business.
What bothers me (and stood out to me while I was watching this film) is that there are people who believe that certain packaged foods will help them lose weight simply because the food is labeled with misleading health statements. All we can do is make sure that people have the facts they need to make the decisions that work for them.
What I love about MFP, is that there are people here (like myself) that don't fall for the hype and give information that's more science based with peer reviewed clinical studies to help back what we believe.
Being in the industry for over 30 years now, I've seen the trends and fear mongering that go on and guess what? We're still only getting fatter.
I will opine that people whom I speak with out and about and are very overweight or obese, have no knowledge on how to eat correctly when it comes to portions, calorie restriction, etc.
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 nutrition0 -
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".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 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.0 -
$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
2006. After all the fighting about the ag bill in the last year, you'd think you could do better than 2006, and maybe actually quote the relevant portions, not just link to the budget as a while.
In any event, while I am personally against agriculture subsidies, this is a sloppy way to discuss the subject that is misleading as to what is actually going on. Indeed, the subsidies have been criticized for artificially RAISING the price of sugar. See http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-taxing-than-sweet-critics-say for a decent discussion.0 -
Well the same could be said for the diet industry as a whole. Products for weight loss is a billion dollar industry and they get you to think that they need their product to be successful.More education regarding nutrition and activity needs would be a great step in addressing the obesity problem, even without altering the way that foods are advertised. If people are making the decision to eat a particular food with intention and the knowledge that it is low-nutrient and high calorie, then that's their business.
What bothers me (and stood out to me while I was watching this film) is that there are people who believe that certain packaged foods will help them lose weight simply because the food is labeled with misleading health statements. All we can do is make sure that people have the facts they need to make the decisions that work for them.
What I love about MFP, is that there are people here (like myself) that don't fall for the hype and give information that's more science based with peer reviewed clinical studies to help back what we believe.
Being in the industry for over 30 years now, I've seen the trends and fear mongering that go on and guess what? We're still only getting fatter.
I will opine that people whom I speak with out and about and are very overweight or obese, have no knowledge on how to eat correctly when it comes to portions, calorie restriction, etc.
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
This is exactly what I'm getting at. I personally think it would be best if we could just outright stop the inaccurate messages being presented by food/diet industry people who are trying to hype and sell a product using misleading statements. However, doing so would be incredibly difficult. If people know all of the facts and still choose to purchase the product, then that's on them. Education, or at least more public discussion, could help people make more informed decisions.
Also, to be clear, I don't have a problem with seductive ads. I do have a problem with ads that portray inaccuracies about the product.0 -
I was made a couple of examples. People will spend money on things they want regardless of cost many times. Cars, clothes, video games, TV's, phones, etc.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".
Obesity ISN'T a disease. There's a way NOT to get it at all and that's by not over consuming. And I'll keep going back to, if sugar were to blame for obesity, the countries that consume more than the US should have worse issues with obesity........and they don't. Again, those are the facts.
I can't disagree that demographics don't affect the statistics on obesity. But then again, people have choices if they want to make them. We as people do so much out of habit, and that's where it has to be addressed first.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.
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 nutrition0 -
So if it was just about cost why do they overindulge in the high processed foods, instead of spending the same amount of money on less cals more nutrient dense foods?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 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.
If they have the money to eat more than they need in processed food, they have enough to eat what they need in unprocessed food.
I think the reason it doesn't happen is pure laziness!
Prepping cooking and cleaning the dishes it takes to make homemade meals is time and energy consuming. A stay at home mom has the time to do these things. A single parent home or a home that needs both parents bringing home an income has little time for these processes. It is easer to eat processed. That is why I believe there is a gap in the weight between the classes.0 -
It's not true. Actual sugar production is down from 20 years ago. You can do your own research by looking at the BLS and other government sites. This is nothing but a sensationalist piece with an agenda. It is a advertisement, actually.
It's mostly untrue. If even a few of the facts are misguided, let's say it was an innocent mistake...how many others can you believe? The whole thing comes into question.
So, before you blindly believe it, do your own research on some of their claims. Don't read blogs and opinions, but dig into actual research, and read it and understand what it says. You will find that the movie is total BS.
You are so right and it's called "personal responsibility". Something which has been lost in today's society.0 -
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.
You make lots of good points. No one is shoving cupcakes down anyone's throats. And I'm not advocating banning high calorie foods. I love my liberty and my freedom of choice. I also agree some people are more sensitive to sugar than others.
However...if obesity is a problem why do we continue to subsidize the foods that are causing the obesity in the first place? The other foods low in cost but high in calories (not just sugar) are also subsidized. I realize the subsidies were started during the great depression to make lots of calories cheap...but Americans are no longer starving. Why are we as a society/government deciding to make healthier choices expensive and unhealthy choices less expensive?0 -
Sorry, but you're making the speculating that people are going to eat better because it's more available and cheaper?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?
Also, we do spend government money trying to make fruit and vegetables more available. Arguably not as much as we should, and there are difficulties in doing it, but we do.
In addition to the food stamp program in general, there have been efforts recently to make them usable at farmer's markets and the like. Moreover, as I live in a city where food deserts are an issue, I know there's lots of attention paid to this problem and have been significant efforts (successful ones) to bring good quality supermarkets to neighborhoods where they don't choose to go based on the market alone. To some extent this has been opposed by community groups who fear gentrification, and it's also often not successful (just because fresh fruits and veggies are available doesn't mean people buy them -- back to the market issue).
It's also true that food giveaways are focused on canned and non-perishable items for obvious reasons. And even apart from those difficulties, having volunteered at both a breakfast and dinner program for the homeless, I can tell you that the cereal gets taken and the fruit doesn't, and the popular dinner choices were always less healthy options. I don't think this is because people are confused about whether or not veggies are healthy. I think it's because people very often care about other things more. I mean, even look at plenty of posts on this forum about people not wanting to eat vegetables. They aren't misled; they have taste preferences that result from their eating habits.0 -
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.
You make lots of good points. No one is shoving cupcakes down anyone's throats. And I'm not advocating banning high calorie foods. I love my liberty and my freedom of choice. I also agree some people are more sensitive to sugar than others.
However...if obesity is a problem why do we continue to subsidize the foods that are causing the obesity in the first place? The other foods low in cost but high in calories (not just sugar) are also subsidized. I realize the subsidies were started during the great depression to make lots of calories cheap...but Americans are no longer starving. Why are we as a society/government deciding to make healthier choices expensive and unhealthy choices less expensive?
I don't think you will find many people arguing in favor of current US farm policy, particularly the subsidies. We end up paying twice but it's not something that is easy to solve. As a citizen and consumer though we can choose what we directly purchase and make available to ourselves and our children. No, it is not a macro solution but it works very well for me.0 -
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.
You make lots of good points. No one is shoving cupcakes down anyone's throats. And I'm not advocating banning high calorie foods. I love my liberty and my freedom of choice. I also agree some people are more sensitive to sugar than others.
However...if obesity is a problem why do we continue to subsidize the foods that are causing the obesity in the first place? The other foods low in cost but high in calories (not just sugar) are also subsidized. I realize the subsidies were started during the great depression to make lots of calories cheap...but Americans are no longer starving. Why are we as a society/government deciding to make healthier choices expensive and unhealthy choices less expensive?
Two things. One, it's hard to stop a subsidy once it starts. Even if the general public became enraged over the subsidy, it would be incredibly difficult to change things. Two, sugar alone is not the cause of obesity. It is a factor for many - probably most - overweight/obese people, but eating sugar will not necessarily make a person gain weight. Subsidizing sugar is not subsidizing the thing that's making us fat, though I would personally prefer to see the money spent on something else.0 -
So if it was just about cost why do they overindulge in the high processed foods, instead of spending the same amount of money on less cals more nutrient dense foods?
If they have the money to eat more than they need in processed food, they have enough to eat what they need in unprocessed food.
Washington University: "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
So if you have $3 a day to feed yourself, would you pick 3 items from the dollar menu which will make you full and get you more calories for your money, or would you pick 1 bag of carrots and an apple or two which won't come close to fulfilling your caloric needs or stopping your hunger? In order to feel full on a low calorie diet with nutritional value it requires more money.I think the reason it doesn't happen is pure laziness!
Prepping cooking and cleaning the dishes it takes to make homemade meals is time and energy consuming. A stay at home mom has the time to do these things. A single parent home or a home that needs both parents bringing home an income has little time for these processes. It is easier to eat processed. That is why I believe there is a gap in the weight between the classes.
Preparing healthy food is definitely harder. I totally agree. How then do we help single moms who are already working overtime to feed their families if not by making healthy choices more affordable? Why would we choose to make it harder by subsidizing the foods that encourage overeating and making the healthy foods more expensive?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions