Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Lots of things correlate with each other. The rise in autism correlates with the rise in organic food production. Correlations are meaningless.
I like this one too:
There are way more than 17 pirates.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.0 -
I am currently trying to restrict my sugar intake, no health issues just seeing if it will help me get past a plateau I am stuck at. I am limiting any added, blended in foods, processed etc. I eat as healthy as I can which it sounds from this group a lot of us do already. I also workout when I can, at least 4 times a week. Limiting one's sugar intake is challenging, I never drank soda anyways, but I like sweets just as well as the next person. I found it is in almost everything we eat. Processed foods for sure, whole foods you just have to read your labels and know what not to eat and what to eat. Also try telling a teenager that you would like to limit the amount of Frosted Flakes he is consuming, this is one of those no win - EPIC fail conversations. Anyways following this thread I can see that most here don't believe there is any correlation with sugar being addictive. From personal experience now that I am on this side I can say being off of it for a month now it is, it's tough I miss it. Can I live without it yeah, but I miss it in my coffee, I miss honey the most. I still eat fruit, no way am I giving up apples, however I have given up bananas due to the higher sugar factor. Jury is still out on this, I can't really say just because bananas have more fructose in them, does that make them bad? For me I can live without them, dried fruit like dates and figs I am having a real hard time with simply because I think the vitamins and minerals you gain should negate any extra sugar calories.
I find baking a whole new experience and not a pleasant one. Simple muffins using brown rice syrup well let's just say they were pretty bad, and I put them in the freezer until I can decide what to do with them. Even the dogs looked at me like "You have to be kidding me?" They are pretty much the worst ever and I will leave it at that. I do feel better though better than I have in a while, and I do owe a good friend of mine who has also reduced her sugar intake for starting me on this. She was the main person to push me into re evaluating consumption of it. She feels the best she has in a long time, and has actually gone off some long standing prescription medications with her doctors approval. She was a 5 a day soda (Cola) drinker, then went to diet Coke and still felt bad, after battling it for some time she gave it all up, sugar non-sugar all of it. Then went on a mission to let her friends and family know, me being one of them noticed the change almost instantly. She went from being moody and heavy to " I can actually have a decent conversation" with her now, without losing my head, she lost a lot of weight and has kept it off for almost 3 years now.
Can it really hurt limiting sugar in your diet? What if it helps you with overcoming some of the challenges' of weight loss? What if you feel better being off sugar? I know people are going to want more proof, and a breakdown of all the "scientific" reasons for eliminating it and maybe we won't find the scientific proof any time soon. But what about people who are doing it, and are finding they actually feel better without it? If I can control my intake and feel better, lose weight and keep the weight off without all the sugar in my diet why not?0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
Would you mind linking it (apologies is you have and I missed it)
Here you go: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Probably because the general and special theories are testable, and provide consistent results on repetition of those tests.
Metabolic syndrome is just a load of bollocks with no evidence to support it, and a vehicle to sell books to dimwits who prefer complicated lies to simple truths.
Troll on, luv.
I believe that the definition of an internet troll is someone who goes on internet forums and insults and antagonizes other posters. It is not my thing but apparently it is yours.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Probably because the general and special theories are testable, and provide consistent results on repetition of those tests.
Metabolic syndrome is just a load of bollocks with no evidence to support it, and a vehicle to sell books to dimwits who prefer complicated lies to simple truths.
Troll on, luv.
I believe that the definition of an internet troll is someone who goes on internet forums and insults and antagonizes other posters. It is not my thing but apparently it is yours.
no, it is someone that posts a bunch of malarky to get replies...0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Personally, I'm very appreciative of this service, as I do not have a science background, and while I am far from gullible, there are still some very convincing claims out there regarding health and nutrition that I do sometimes fall for. Fortunately, "sugar is the devil" isn't one of them.
I'm currently cutting sugar and starches for the sake of making it easier to cut calories (not being strict, just eating a lot less of it) because I keep gaining and losing the same 5 pounds, and I'd rather lose 10 pounds and keep it off. But that's just for ease of calorie cutting, not because of some inherent evil in ice cream and bread.
0 -
-
I found it is in almost everything we eat. Processed foods for sure, whole foods you just have to read your labels and know what not to eat and what to eat.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't understand this. Doesn't whole foods generally refer to foods that don't have labels (or if they do they say something like "pork")? None of that would have added sugar.
Most of what I eat doesn't have any, so I don't think it's true that it's in most of what we eat (if you mean, really, added sugar, and not simply carbs). I eat ice cream, which obviously has it, and sometimes flavored yogurt, and I believe a little is used in smoking salmon (although I wouldn't think that should bother even super anti sugar types) and so on, but it really doesn't seem that difficult if you care (not saying anyone should or shouldn't).Can it really hurt limiting sugar in your diet? What if it helps you with overcoming some of the challenges' of weight loss? What if you feel better being off sugar?
No, for lots of people it doesn't hurt and might help. What I think annoys people, or at least sparks these discussions, is the idea that it's the essence of health to cut out "added sugar" (especially when people keep in honey or syrup or whatever on the basis that they are "natural" so don't count).
I found it helpful to cut out added sugar (also some other stuff) for a couple of weeks because I was using it in a way that wasn't helpful to me and had built up some related habits. But that had NOTHING to do with the properties of sugar itself, or it being somehow addictive or unhealthy for anyone. It had to do with my personal use of it. Similarly, I think eating too much of it is bad for you (too much meaning that you are eating too many calories or not eating enough other stuff, like protein and veggies, or that you have cravings or feel hungry or somesuch, which happens to some not all if they eat lots of sugar), but this does not mean that it's somehow the healthiest (you win a prize!) to cut out "added sugar" and not as healthy to eat a balanced nutrient-dense diet that happens to include a little sugar too (meaning sweets or, you know, bananas).
My guess is that for a lot of people who go from tons of sugar to cutting it out and report feeling better that they would feel fine eating moderate amounts too, although no reason they should if they don't want to. (There are plenty of things I don't eat, I just generally don't post about them.) Often implicit in the posts about how cutting sugar cures all ones ills is the assumption that everyone suffers from those ills and that the benefit is from cutting it out, not simply ceasing to overeat or eat insane amounts of sugar or changing to a more nutritious diet overall. (Same with the usual similar posts about "processed foods.")
But I certainly can believe that someone could find cutting stuff out, at least for a time, the easiest way to approach it and see no harm in that.
I don't believe it's addictive, though.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
Hmmm, I would be looking for a new physician. Check out these links.
gastricbypasskills.blogspot.com/2014/08/metabolic-syndrome-is-myth.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02325.x/full
What has the weight loss surgery reference to do with me? I have not had weight loss surgery nor would I EVER have it. The term "metabolic syndrome" is a catchall phrase that describes a specific set of medical circumstances and is a convenient way of referring to a cluster of co-morbidities. Apparently the prestigious Cleveland Clinic sees nothing wrong with using the term. I no longer have "metabolic syndrome", by the way. In addition, I no longer have an interest in corresponding with you. Any further posts by you to me will be ignored. Life is too short to put up with rude and libelous posts on the internet.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
Hmmm, I would be looking for a new physician. Check out these links.
gastricbypasskills.blogspot.com/2014/08/metabolic-syndrome-is-myth.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02325.x/full
What has the weight loss surgery reference to do with me? I have not had weight loss surgery nor would I EVER have it. The term "metabolic syndrome" is a catchall phrase that describes a specific set of medical circumstances and is a convenient way of referring to a cluster of co-morbidities. Apparently the prestigious Cleveland Clinic sees nothing wrong with using the term. I no longer have "metabolic syndrome", by the way. In addition, I no longer have an interest in corresponding with you. Any further posts by you to me will be ignored. Life is too short to put up with rude and libelous posts on the internet.
It is quite obvious that you didn't read the links I posted. By the way, you no longer have metabolic syndrome because you never had metabolic syndrome. It's a myth and it's an excuse people use for being obese.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright. I need some clarification here after seeing how much the thread blew up...
I saw the documentary, and it actually resonated as quite true with me, and I'd like to think that I am not a completely uninformed and ignorant person. Rather the contrary, as nutrition was always a big topic in my family. (and before someone asks me to open my diary – I can, but I got my wisdom teeth pulled two weeks ago and currently don't have access to a kitchen or a scale, and thus my feeding pattern is far from representative not to mention that I am guesstimating a lot)
Some parts of it were blatantly sensationalist, and I found the way exercise and calories in/out were presented problematic, as one could interpret it as "exercise is pointless and I can eat whatever I want as long as I cut sugar".
However, the rest of the core theses – the fact that processed foods are bad for one's health (and by processed foods I mean pre-processed such as ramen and eventually refined sugars and cereals) and that excess sugar is a big issue in modern world didn't sound as far-fetched. Neither that sugar may very well be addictive, considering not only the effects that is has had on rats* but also that due to its characteristics similar to morphine it is sometimes used as an anaesthetic on premature babies**. Moreover, none of these facts were really new either, so I am not sure what is wrong with that thesis?
Finally, I the way I saw it, the documentary wasn't necessarily aimed at those who already know how to eat healthy and choose to eat crap, but was trying to highlight how a lot of these families with obese kids simply do not know how to eat and properly feed themselves. Which is kind of a problem – I know it's easy to say "but these days everybody has an Internet connection", but then again, the trouble with the Internet is that in order to use it, you also need to know how to filter the information thrown at you. And if you do not have a certain educational background you just are not able to do so.martyqueen52 wrote: »http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.
I agree partly with what is written in the article, about Fed Up being reductive in many ways, but I don't see how the documentary speaks against a Whole Food and Plant Based diet? It seemed to be the contrary for me?
So my question is – am I missing some important piece of context to understand why this documentary in particular is so much hated?
Many of us have science backgrounds and we do not let pseudo-science and hype go unchallenged since it is in the nature of those who value the emprical method to challenge interpretation of the facts; this is how science has always evolved and those who are not well trained in science are the ones who generally take easy offence to this approach. It's not that we are being mean, as often we are accused of, but trying to actually indicate what is really out there as fact versus what is out there that is really not accurate and highly misleading.
The facts do not support the idea that sugar is addictive like cocaine or heroine so you will be challenged on this if you state it. If one chooses to avoid added sugar than this is fine but if you try to justify it through statements of facts that do not meet a certain standard of evidence you will be challenged on them. This documentary is known to be a collection of bias and misinformation and this is what we challenge.
Personally, I'm very appreciative of this service, as I do not have a science background, and while I am far from gullible, there are still some very convincing claims out there regarding health and nutrition that I do sometimes fall for. Fortunately, "sugar is the devil" isn't one of them.
I'm currently cutting sugar and starches for the sake of making it easier to cut calories (not being strict, just eating a lot less of it) because I keep gaining and losing the same 5 pounds, and I'd rather lose 10 pounds and keep it off. But that's just for ease of calorie cutting, not because of some inherent evil in ice cream and bread.
Cutting carbs is certainly an easy way to cut calories since we have so many high carb foods around. That's one reason why it seems to make so much sense since foods that are high in calories but low in nutrition tend to be ones that have a lot of carbs and cutting back on those generally makes it easier to lose weight.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
Hmmm, I would be looking for a new physician. Check out these links.
gastricbypasskills.blogspot.com/2014/08/metabolic-syndrome-is-myth.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02325.x/full
What has the weight loss surgery reference to do with me? I have not had weight loss surgery nor would I EVER have it. The term "metabolic syndrome" is a catchall phrase that describes a specific set of medical circumstances and is a convenient way of referring to a cluster of co-morbidities. Apparently the prestigious Cleveland Clinic sees nothing wrong with using the term. I no longer have "metabolic syndrome", by the way. In addition, I no longer have an interest in corresponding with you. Any further posts by you to me will be ignored. Life is too short to put up with rude and libelous posts on the internet.
that is a rare one..
based on your posting history, we should just be ignoring you as well…..0 -
Good Luck, I watched it too and it has valid points to make especially about sugar being added to practically all processed foods.0
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
Would you mind linking it (apologies is you have and I missed it)
Here you go: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
I just skimmed the review article that he did (the only link that mentioned obesity or metabolic syndrome) - he does not conclude anything re obesity. He has an hypotheses.
I am going to read the article in more detail when I have a bit more time, but in the mean time, do you have the link to the study you mentioned?
0 -
Good Luck, I watched it too and it has valid points to make especially about sugar being added to practically all processed foods.
As is salt, fat and an array of artificial and natural flavours so why are we so concerned just about the sugar? To be fair, it's not a bad idea to reduce highly processed and fast food but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate to all foods with sugar in them.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Good Luck, I watched it too and it has valid points to make especially about sugar being added to practically all processed foods.
As is salt, fat and an array of artificial and natural flavours so why are we so concerned just about the sugar? To be fair, it's not a bad idea to reduce highly processed and fast food but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate to all foods with sugar in them.
and heaven forbid companies actually make food taste good so people will you know, buy their product...0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Good Luck, I watched it too and it has valid points to make especially about sugar being added to practically all processed foods.
As is salt, fat and an array of artificial and natural flavours so why are we so concerned just about the sugar? To be fair, it's not a bad idea to reduce highly processed and fast food but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate to all foods with sugar in them.
and heaven forbid companies actually make food taste good so people will you know, buy their product...
Of course, they should only make the really healthy stuff taste good and the less healthy stuff should taste like cod liver oil or wet cardboard. After all, they are just in business to make sure we eat properly. <-- sorry can't even type that with a straight face.
0 -
I'm far more concerned about the levels of sodium in processed food than in sugars. Since I don't eat a lot of it, it all tastes terribly salty to me. Recently I wrote to Alexia (one of the better frozen foods brands) about how incredibly salty their chipotle sweet potato and vegetables dish was. It was almost inedible to me.0
-
I have been eating whole foods and cutting down my processed foods...I don't need the sugar and a lot of what is processed is high in calories but lacks nutrients...I want to be healthy not just skinny. You can be skinny and still lack the basic ingredients of health...Our tax dollars in the USA would be better spent subsidizing healthier options instead of crops like GMO Corn...-1
-
Lourdesong wrote: »LadyTalulah wrote: »I agree that it's completely down to the individual to control what and how much we eat, but there is truth in the fact that the big food corporations don't care about our health. They'll market anything as healthy just to sell it when it's actually complete synthesised cr*p. Of course you need to take personal resposibility on educating yourself about what's healthy and what's not but it's not made any easier with all the conflicting information out there.
It's true, they didn't force feed you anything, whatever you ate was your choice… Either way, good to know you started to do your own research. Educate yourself then follow whatever feels right to you! Good luck.
They can market anything as healthy because there are competing philosophies about what's healthy and what isn't. Hence all the "conflicting information." An Atkins follower won't care that Quaker Oats is "heart healthy" and low sodium. A vegetarian won't care that tuna is a low fat source of protein. A vegan won't care that milk is a good source of calcium. And so on.
And this is why these documentaries stink. They assume a philosophy, and then work off of that as if everyone assumes it, or should assume it, as well. No one's pet food philosophy has the power to dictate health to the rest of us. We shouldn't all be forced to eat gluten-free just because there's a food philosophy trending about it, and we shouldn't deny corporations the right to produce and heavily market gluten free products for those who demand it.
I'll eat Lucky Charms and McDonald's because my philosophy allows me the freedom to do that. And who is Katie Couric to scold me or anyone else or any corporation for that matter about it just because a sugar-is-da-debbel philosophy doesn't tolerate these sugary foods? Why should government enact policy that would in the end amount to "vice" taxes on foods that, according to some random group of bozo's food and health philosophy, is da debbil?
QFT. I don't want anyone dictating what I can and cannot eat. I can figure that out on my own. So can anyone else who wants to take the time and effort to do it. I don't want to be punished just because some people want to find someone else to blame and won't self-regulate themselves.0 -
annehutson2 wrote: »I have been eating whole foods and cutting down my processed foods...I don't need the sugar and a lot of what is processed is high in calories but lacks nutrients...I want to be healthy not just skinny. You can be skinny and still lack the basic ingredients of health...Our tax dollars in the USA would be better spent subsidizing healthier options instead of crops like GMO Corn...
yea, because when the government gets involved everything gets better. < that was sarcasm in case you missed it...0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Good Luck, I watched it too and it has valid points to make especially about sugar being added to practically all processed foods.
As is salt, fat and an array of artificial and natural flavours so why are we so concerned just about the sugar? To be fair, it's not a bad idea to reduce highly processed and fast food but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate to all foods with sugar in them.
and heaven forbid companies actually make food taste good so people will you know, buy their product...
Of course, they should only make the really healthy stuff taste good and the less healthy stuff should taste like cod liver oil or wet cardboard. After all, they are just in business to make sure we eat properly. <-- sorry can't even type that with a straight face.
:laugh:
0 -
annehutson2 wrote: »I have been eating whole foods and cutting down my processed foods...I don't need the sugar and a lot of what is processed is high in calories but lacks nutrients...I want to be healthy not just skinny. You can be skinny and still lack the basic ingredients of health...Our tax dollars in the USA would be better spent subsidizing healthier options instead of crops like GMO Corn...
It's interesting what you say about malnutrition in a way. I've watched some of those shows on the super obese that follow them on surgery to lose the weight and often it ends up that these people are also malnourished despite the amount of food they eat and some of them were eating well over 6000 cals per day but it was a very "grey" diet with very little in the way of fruits and vegetables. It's actually kind of scary.0 -
You know what else gets tiresome? You trying to make every thread about smallish aging post-menopausal women, as if you are 90% of the population.SanteMulberry wrote: »After all the time Sara dedicated to responding I was hoping for more from SanteMulberry. I'm disappointed. But not really surprised.
I do have other things to do you know--besides participating in the forums. I don't often participate here because it is very time consuming. Why add the "not really surprised"--what is that supposed to mean? I have likely had many more posts than Sara in this thread. What ARE you talking about? Really--many of you here need to learn how to respond to the points that people make without resorting to attacks on the character of the one with whom you disagree. It really gets very tiresome.
-1 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
So first you infer that she has a rigorous training schedule most can or won't do as a reason she's able to be as she is. But now that it is "revealed" she does something that is actually average and doable, it's got to be her "better" metabolism (insinuating that it's something she's always had)???
:laugh:
Okay then.
Was she ever more than 20-30 pounds overweight?
I believe she lost about 40-45 lbs.
I think that some weight-lifters believe that you can lose all the body fat you want to with just weight-lifting alone. I have yet to see that happen with me but I certainly have improved A LOT.
I feel like the two of us are having two different conversations. I definitely was not (in this or any thread) arguing that all you need to lose any amount of body fat is lifting.
I think all that's being pointed out here is that there are certainly women on this site who are in their 40s, were once overweight/obese, exercise moderately, and haven't had the need to cut out food groups in order to lose fat.
My understanding is that certain types of diet are better for people with thyroid issues, but I don't think that necessarily carries over to the rest of the population.
Let's see, I'm in my 40's, have thyroid issues and am diabetic. However, I've lost over 85 pounds, lowered my A1C into the "normal" range and am in the best shape of my life. I still eat everything (in moderation), including ice cream, chocolate and full-fat cheese. Because of the diabetes, I have to limit how many carbs I eat in order to keep my A1C in the normal range, but I still eat them, just in moderation. It would be a sad, sad world if I couldn't have ice cream and pizza once in a while...
0 -
I still eat some processed foods and I enjoy stuff that isn't the healthiest for me. I believe for me that eating more whole foods and as much organic food as possible is best for me. News flash the Government already is involved with processed foods and yeah...they messed it up, but I guess at least it's cheap. I don't have any major health issues yet and I am hoping to avoid them.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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