Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
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.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
If this was the case, you wouldn't feel compelled to respond to EVERY post that even hints at you. You don't come across as trying to help anyone. You come across as someone feeding off attention.
0 -
thesupremeforce wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
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.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
If this was the case, you wouldn't feel compelled to respond to EVERY post that even hints at you. You don't come across as trying to help anyone. You come across as someone feeding off attention.
I think she's a troll. I don't believe she is sincere at all, atleast I hope not. That much ignorance can't be real.-1 -
Ahhh cynical cranky MFP how I have missed thee.0
-
thesupremeforce wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
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.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
If this was the case, you wouldn't feel compelled to respond to EVERY post that even hints at you. You don't come across as trying to help anyone. You come across as someone feeding off attention.
I think she's a troll. I don't believe she is sincere at all, atleast I hope not. That much ignorance can't be real.
Oh you'd be surprised, they say ignorance is bliss and there are some damned happy people in this country because of it lol. I agree with the troll theory though.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You admitted to trolling earlier in this thread when you said how much you enjoy the reaction you get. So, yes, it is your thing.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, that is not what I said. I said that I generally don't visit the forums anymore but occasionally, I find them amusing. That is not the same as what you have accused. I really don't "enjoy the reaction I get"--those are your words. I find the snarky reactions often annoying and sometimes interesting in a clinical kind of way (I have a degree in counseling psychology) but the part that amuses me is the way that some people in the forums apparently think that insults of random individuals on the internet is something that is very important to do.
Nice backpedal. lolz.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »Man, how did I miss this garbage fire?! So in.
Stand back. The flags have arrived.
Sweet! I don't think I've gotten any today. I already have two posts hanging out in the wind for them to flag like a semaphore based debate.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »Man, how did I miss this garbage fire?! So in.
Stand back. The flags have arrived.
Sweet! I don't think I've gotten any today. I already have two posts hanging out in the wind for them to flag like a semaphore based debate.
ROFL that's a good comp sci joke there!0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Man, how did I miss this garbage fire?! So in.
Stand back. The flags have arrived.
Sweet! I don't think I've gotten any today. I already have two posts hanging out in the wind for them to flag like a semaphore based debate.
ROFL that's a good comp sci joke there!
It's a twofer! Flag semaphore as well!0 -
What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
-5 -
I love having my comments flagged, I bet it's the troll.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
Trololol.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion.SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »Quite stunned still to have read this comment and not seeing others respond to the fallacies it presents to the readers:
You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
It is so annoying to see people spout opinions based on their own misinformed collection of thoughts and try to present themselves as informed.
Firstly, CICO does not equal low calorie. Secondly, people do not quickly regain because they were malnourished from only paying attention to CICO. One can be entirely well-nourished, following a moderate deficit, CICO and IIFYM and still regain once they hit their magical goal because they are not eating at maintenance - they are eating in surplus. What causes them to eat at a suprlus? A whole list of things that are entirely individual and one could spend days discussing them.
You want to eat a certain way because it works for you? Great. You want to share what works for you? Awesome. But please - stop demonizing and misinforming others with your incorrect conclusions and opinions and trying to present them as factual. The use of words like 'generally' and 'often' does not actually make your statements any less wrong.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Since you want to be so critical of everyone else and have excuses for everything, why don't you opt your page and diary so that we can see how it's done. Every time someone comes along being all high and mighty about what they eat and trashing their own friends, their diaries are closed.
Also, you are doing a pretty pathetic job of backing up all your claims. It's apparent the are just opinions not facts. And you've back peddled pretty well I must say.
Open your diary if you feel it's necessary to trash others. Don't be a hypocrite.
I make no excuses--I have taken my health in my hands and it's all good. I have much personal information on my page that I do not open to everyone on the internet--sorry. I have posted pages of my food diaries before. If I feel like it, I will but I only give access to those I choose. I have NEVER "back-pedalled" by the way. I remain of the same opinions as those I had when I began this "discussion". You reveal your mindset when you speak of others "...being all high and mighty...". My diary is open to my friends and I cannot imagine any scenario in which I would select you for a friend. Sit on it.
Me want to be friends with you? Yea, never has or will ever cross my mind.. I like strong friends that don't post nonsense using age, hormones, gender etc as a crutch.
Me thinking I'm high and mighty? Maybe, maybe not. I'm no where near the best on this site but I think I'm pretty f'ing awesome for sure. I love me some me!!!!
LOL--now that is amusing!
I can't believe that you actually posted this:
"...Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion..."
Since when do you get to set the rules for what anyone comments about the eating habits of others? LOL!
Probably at the same time that you imagined you get to set the rules about who should but out.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
I care. I care if someone is posting something that is inaccurate or misleading. I am pretty sure that people reading threads care that what they are reading and potentially believing is correct also.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »What is wrong with you people!!!!!????? So, you don't agree with something someone else has said.... who cares, move on.
Don't you have anything better to do than flog a dead horse and continuously flag people? ?? If i was the admin on this site I would be banning the perpetual flag abusers!!!
Tine to grow up and get a life kids!!
You say that we should move on since we "don't agree" with what someone else is saying. That implies that you think we have a difference of opinion. That's not the case. There are people spewing misinformation and we'd like to do our best to set right those wrongs.0 -
Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
0 -
Very few fall into the former group. In my experience they generally are well educated and versed in analysis.herrspoons wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
One thing I have learned over the years is that some people respond to polite, well thought out arguments and others just need a good kicking.
So it goes.
Most need a boot.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
Not saying this is you, but one bit of my frustration is that there seems to be such a strange desire by some posters for sugar to be addictive. My issue with the documentary (besides that) is how it's been sold, the whole "Oh my, we've been tricked!" and "people don't know how much sugar they are eating!" (see the OP for a good example, as well as every other thread on the documentary here). In fact, I do know how much sugar I eat (anyone at MFP could) and the sources of it weren't remotely surprising. (I don't eat lots of prepackaged stuff, though, and tend to know what's in those I do, and even if I chose not to pay attention to what I ate I wouldn't blame corporations or whatever.) I think it's insane to claim that people are fat because there's a little sugar in their ketchup or bread (and I don't even like ketchup or supermarket bread). It's the new scapegoat, and--as I said earlier in this thread--similar to the "fat makes you fat!" nonsense of the '80s and '90s. I also am proof positive it's possible to get fat quite easily without eating lots of highly processed stuff as I haven't for years.
As for people being fat because they are supposedly too dumb to know high calorie food is fattening, I am willing to believe that lots of people are really dumb, but I don't buy that they are THAT dumb. People aren't fat because they don't get how it happens or because they think that candy bars or hot pockets are low calorie. They are fat because they make choices about what to prioritize, and for some--and not necessarily for unreasonable reasons--that means they don't feel like putting in the effort (which might be a lot, depending on where they live) and money to get healthier options and to cook on a regular basis. They go with convenience foods, which also happen to be readily accessible and pretty cheap. (Not cheaper than whole foods necessarily, although than some, sure, but add in the time costs and they probably become so for many.) Also, even more significantly and apparently poo-poo'd by the documentary, people are fat because the activity level in our society has fallen dramatically for lots of reasons, mainly relating to jobs, where people live, and cars.
It's weird cocaine is always the example (much more than heroin), since I don't think cocaine is really supposed to be all that addictive in the scheme of things. But what that rat study indicates isn't really about addictiveness, but that cocaine, and sugar, stimulate the pleasure pathways in your brain, which is hardly surprising--eating in general does, sex does, there are obvious evolutionary reasons this would be so. Cocaine kind of co-opts that, so people find it pleasurable, but I don't actually think the essence of addiction is finding something pleasurable. I find many things pleasurable that I am not therefore addicted to, and when I did consider myself addicted to something it was in large part because I felt like I needed it, although that was not pleasurable at all.
That makes sense.
I have enormous trouble with the "I can't believe people are that dumb" part. I have to state here – I don't live in the US, and although I knew that a lot of junk food is consumed in the states, Fed Up! was the first documentary I saw on the matter, and I was shocked by what is served in food cantines. Talking with my Mom and my boyfriend though (who is a doctor) they pointed out that most likely, that has been normalised to a point where people don't even think about eating in a different way.
Let's take a personal example – I consider a breakfast of bread-based products and something nutella as a perfectly healthy part of an everyday meal.
Now, I know that nutella is high-calorie not the healthiest food on the market, but if I didn't know better, I would most likely keep it in my diet even if I was trying to lose wight, because it just appears to be healthy to me. Even better – my grandmother, would routinely cook us fried chicken breasts and serve it with fried eggplants, for example, because in her mind it was good, filling food for growing children.
What I am saying is that I guess the issue is not stupidity, but just plain ignorance. Nutrition, to my knowledge, is not something taught in school, and in any case most definitely wasn't 40-50 years ago, when the parents of these obese kids were in school. Also, at the time, eating fat, calorie-heavy foods made sense as there was a lot more manual labour and thus energy needed to be restored. In the case of my grandparents, there is and ben more subtle reason: they just were not very rich people and could not afford tons of food. So pimping up the meals with lots of fat helped them get their daily calorie-intake. Neither situations, however, apply today.
Now before anyone takes me at face value, this is obviously a hypothesis based on personal observation of my peers which is in no way backed by facts.
As for cocaine... well, I am using cocaine as an example because that is the drug the study used. It is weird indeed though, now that I think about it, another study I am reading states that sugar releases opioids. So it would make a lot more sense to compare it with drugs from the opioid family. I think it has something to do with cocaine and sugar activating the same neural pathways? I dunno. I should look more into that, though. It is curious indeed. (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT stating that this means sugar is an opioid or that sugar has the same effects as cocaine. The article in question is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461 The lead researcher's page can be found here: http://www.drnicoleavena.com)
And yes, I do have a bit of a weird obsession with food addiction at the moment. Please note: I don't NEED food to be addictive, I just find the possibility that it MIGHT be really interesting, along with the consequences of that. Mostly, I think that if there were evidence to sustain that hypothesis, it could be a step forward in battling obesity as it would allow for better measures to be taken. (Not necessarily regulating food companies, but in terms of the treatment given to patients.) 0 -
GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it.
Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt. 
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
There have been credible links posted in this thread already that show the issues with the claims made in the documentary.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
http://www.foodinsight.org/FedUp-review
Thank you! I must have missed those two. I swear every time I clicked on a link I kept ending up on some corporation-sponsoder web side. 0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...
Ugh, ok, I have some time while waiting at the airport.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...
Alright, I just found it. O.O I don't even know what to say. I had a similar conversation with my boyfriend last night. We were being sarcastic.
I am now going to add a disclaimer to my previous post in which I mention opiates...
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...
Alright, I just found it. O.O I don't even know what to say. I had a similar conversation with my boyfriend last night. We were being sarcastic.
I am now going to add a disclaimer to my previous post in which I mention opiates...
I hope you brought enough opiates for the entire class. 0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...
Alright, I just found it. O.O I don't even know what to say. I had a similar conversation with my boyfriend last night. We were being sarcastic.
I am now going to add a disclaimer to my previous post in which I mention opiates...
I hope you brought enough opiates for the entire class.
No, but... do you realise? That means every parent an unwilling drug dealer every halloween!
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...
Alright, I just found it. O.O I don't even know what to say. I had a similar conversation with my boyfriend last night. We were being sarcastic.
I am now going to add a disclaimer to my previous post in which I mention opiates...
I hope you brought enough opiates for the entire class.
No, but... do you realise? That means every parent an unwilling drug dealer every halloween!
Unwilling? Hmm, we give chocolate to strangers kids because they have sugar and caffeine and they will be eating before they go to bed and maybe we just find that amusing. 0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GingerbreadCandy 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.
<b>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. </b> 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.
Lol, sorry but worded like that it kind of sounds like a threat. ^^ (I know it's not, I just found that amusing)
Ok, I understand that. On the other hand, going through the discussion, I see very few comments offering a scientific explanation and links to scientific articles giving counterarguments, and plenty stating that "if THAT is the source you are getting information from, you are not to be taken seriously" and general remarks about why a person is wrong.
I don't think I ever stated sugar is addictive in the same way cocaine and heroine is. What I said was that it was shown to have addictive effects in lab rats and, in one study, shown to surpass cocaine reward*. Now, I am well aware that this does not necessarily translate to humans, but it is an indicator that it might.
As for the documentary, you state that "it is known" to be a collection of bias and misinformation. No, I am sorry, it is not know, evidently. Otherwise I would not be asking about it. Now, I have seen some articles arguing against the documentary, which were however in some way financed or associated with large food corporations and one, from Sweetenerstudies.com seems to be associated with the Corn Refiner's Association. Pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Also, please know that I have not read the book, so I am analysing the documentary on its own terms.
Would you have any studies at hand that speak against sugar being addictive and scientific reviews on the documentary? (I have been looking for the latter and have not found any)
As I stated, I realise that the documentary is far from being hard, scientific facts and is problematic at times. However, the basic thesis – eat less sugar and processed products – resonates with me as basic common sense and far from the usual promotion of fad diets. Which is why I am confused as why this documentary in particular is attracting so much hate.
*http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
LOL, guess it could sound like a threat but a challenge is normally just a request to lay out your facts for examination. This is why some of the studies and sources are already discounted since we have seen them before and we have found them lacking, i.e. they are motivated by something other than disinterested investigation or have been discredited for weak methodologies etc.
As for the evidence that sugar is not addictive, I will cop out for the time since I am at work and don't have a lot of time to link them all, but I do know that there are others here that have them locked and loaded and they have been posted numerous times.
I certainly support eating healthfully and higly processed foods are at the top of the list for reduction or removal if that is your goal, but remember that they also contain a lot of fat and since we don't demonize fat we should extend the same to sugar as well since it is no worse if eaten in moderation.
ETA, oh I didn't accuse you directly of stating that sugar was addictive like a drug but that does come up a lot so that's why I mentioned that a few times.
Alright, I'll wait for the people that have them "locked and loaded." I'm afraid I am myself packed with work myself and thus do not have the time to go on a 30-page hunt.
Well, I am not looking to demonise sugar, really. I was just majorly confused as to why everyone was trying to demonise this documentary in particular. What I extrapolate for what you are saying though is that there is a risk is that if one does not look at it critically, it may very well end up with people demonising sugar. Which could be true, I guess, and I assume some people have if it's such a hot topic. I just did not see it in that way at all.
In any case, thanks for the patience and the reply.
my main complaint is that people watch/read garbage like this and think "oh, I am fat because of all the sugar;" when in reality the reason is that people are fat from overeating and lack of movement. Eliminating sugar has nothing to do with weight loss, unless one has a medical condition.
Go back and review the posts in this thread about sugar causing obesity and sugar being comported to heroin...
Alright, I just found it. O.O I don't even know what to say. I had a similar conversation with my boyfriend last night. We were being sarcastic.
I am now going to add a disclaimer to my previous post in which I mention opiates...
I hope you brought enough opiates for the entire class.
No, but... do you realise? That means every parent an unwilling drug dealer every halloween!
Unwilling? Hmm, we give chocolate to strangers kids because they have sugar and caffeine and they will be eating before they go to bed and maybe we just find that amusing.
I had never seen it that way before. 0 -
herrspoons wrote: »
Very few fall into the former group. In my experience they generally are well educated and versed in analysis.herrspoons wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
One thing I have learned over the years is that some people respond to polite, well thought out arguments and others just need a good kicking.
So it goes.
Most need a boot.
Pretty much. Most of the ones who take offence are the perpetual failures and people who are looking for excuses, and, let's face it, they'll never be convinced by any form of argument, so why waste the time?
Its not a waste of time if it makes you think outside the way everyone else is doing things. If you take a look at what you are doing and pick the things that work for you and toss the ones that don't.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »
Very few fall into the former group. In my experience they generally are well educated and versed in analysis.herrspoons wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
One thing I have learned over the years is that some people respond to polite, well thought out arguments and others just need a good kicking.
So it goes.
Most need a boot.
Pretty much. Most of the ones who take offence are the perpetual failures and people who are looking for excuses, and, let's face it, they'll never be convinced by any form of argument, so why waste the time?
I usually only take offense when people promote misinformation and refuse to back down, or tell me I'm "doing it wrong," unsolicited, mind you, even though I continue to be successful.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »
Very few fall into the former group. In my experience they generally are well educated and versed in analysis.herrspoons wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Yeah I know, but no one is backing down and you all are just going round and round in circles.
What bothers me most is that some people appear to be taking great pleasure in ridiculing and putting others down
One thing I have learned over the years is that some people respond to polite, well thought out arguments and others just need a good kicking.
So it goes.
Most need a boot.
Pretty much. Most of the ones who take offence are the perpetual failures and people who are looking for excuses, and, let's face it, they'll never be convinced by any form of argument, so why waste the time?
I usually only take offense when people promote misinformation and refuse to back down, or tell me I'm "doing it wrong," unsolicited, mind you, even though I continue to be successful.
I wish I could like this, but MFP doesn't gve us that opion. Maybe I will flag it in place of a like? 0
This discussion has been closed.
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