Why I am cutting back on sugar
Replies
-
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
Completely false.
Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
so we are comparing cigarettes to food companies now, really?0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
So again, where do we take responsibilities for ourselves? Are you able to tell your children no? Are you able to weigh the pro's and con's of these items? Are you getting the proper exercise that keeps up with your diet? No, I don't blame the companies, I blame a lack of education in nutrition and the fact that people are more sedentary then ever. Cigarettes aren't illegal, neither is drinking or many other things we conceive as harmful to ourselves. But we're not talking about cigarettes here. We're talking about food, sugar and in the end we need to be responsible for ourselves and our children. Read labels and exercise actual thought when you purchase products for you and your family.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
But food only contributes to poor health if eaten in excess. And any food is harmful when eaten in excess. It's not just sugary foods. Too much of anything is bad.
It's not up to the manufacturer to monitor how many cookies you eat; that's your job. Their job is to make them available to you.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries.
Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
The cigarette thing is a bit of a stretch here...
Also, typically even though the sugary cereals, candy bars, etc. are marketed to kids, when I was 10, I wasn't going to the grocery store to purchase Toaster Strudel myself. It was my parents who made the grocery runs. And it was up to my parents as to whether or not they wanted to buy the things I pestered them for.
Even if I *kitten* and moaned, they were responsible for being parents and either telling me "no" or buying a damn package of Swiss Cake Rolls.
Are you advocating blaming Coke (or any other company for that matter) because someone didn't have the foresight to police their children's soda consumption? Are you really saying that people should file a lawsuit against Betty Crocker because a kid might have eaten his or her body weight in Fruit by the Foot and tubs of frosting and therefore blew up like a balloon? Right... it's the company's fault and totally not parents of young children or (if age appropriate) individuals themselves.0 -
nmKombuchaCat wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »I'm surprised at how strongly people will defend sugar. I guess it is my fault for using the phrasing "sugar is bad". That's totally subjective and not true.
Based on historical data, excess sugar does appear to be a contributing factor to health issues.
Does that work for everyone? That may be an acceptable way to put it but it is unlikely to get the average person motivated to restrict their sugar intake.
In my personal experience, not evidence but worth discussing, sugar is hard to control. About a year ago, I was in peak condition, eating right and exercising regularly. One day I decided to try Nutella. I had never had it before and I was curious about how it tasted. I spread some on a rice cake and took a taste. To me, it was the best thing I had ever tasted. Short time later my healthy lifestyle was derailed.
I can't say that one taste of processed sugar was what sent me on a tailspin but it definitely made keeping my diet in check more difficult.
From WebMd:
Your Brain on SugarINEXPLICABLE WEIGHT GAIN You stay away from burgers and drink diet soda. But sugar—both real and artificial—is the secret saboteur. When the pancreas senses sugar, the body releases insulin, which causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen for energy. Eat too much at once, though, and insulin levels spike, then drop. The aftermath? You feel tired, then crave more sustenance to perk up.
I'm not suggesting that sugar has the same effect on everyone. I'm not saying that people on a high sugar diet can't keep their weight under control. What I am saying is that based on all the evidence and studies, it is worth it for people to question whether or not sugar has a negative impact on their health and fitness goals.
You have obviously never seen a sugar post on here. I've posted similar anti-sugar things and gotten the same response. People want to think they can eat whatever they want just smaller amounts and that fixes everything. Most of those people end up regaining the weight...I know that was me. Look I've got much to loose but it's way easier if you can let go of the sugar, namely large amounts of fructose. I'm able to do things like intermittent fasting that I could never have done with my prior sugar intake. There's also the freedom from constant hunger and snacking and the hypoglycemia thing. People will tell you it's Psuedoscience and that you know nothing of how the metabolism works. They are wrong. Different foods are metabolized differently and effect your hormones differently. There is plenty of research out there that pans this out and has been sited repeatedly on this site. I would suggest you join us over at the paleo/primal group. Even if you don't go paleo you will find people who understand these concepts and are healthier for it.
You're projecting when you say things like this. I did alternate-day IF for weight loss, 5:2IF as my transition plan into maintenance and I now do 16:8IF as part of my maintenance plan. I have absolutely no problem doing IF while eating all the foods I enjoy, including things that have sugar. And I'm never hungry and I don't snack (usually eat two large meals a day and call it good). There's lots of others here who do IF and eat the foods that they enjoy, including sugary ones, and are having great success with their weight/fitness goals.
The reality is-there's a dismal success rate with long term weight loss success, regardless of what woe/plan someone follows. Doesn't matter if you follow CICO, low carb, vegan, 'paleo', are 'pro' sugar or 'anti' sugar etc etc. There's no legitimate studies out there that point to one woe and shows that it has a high success rate for long term weight loss success. What many studies DO show though, is that most of us here will fail at this whole thing long term. I'm a big believer that we all need to figure out what works for us individually (probably through lots of trial and error), and then focus on that.
If someone has an easier time maintaining their weight loss because of certain parameters, like cutting down on sugar, then more power to them. I don't eat past 7pm, because it's a parameter that helps me keep on track. Does that mean that everyone should do this, because it works for me? Of course not. And just because someone feels led to cut back on sugar in their own woe, does not mean that everyone should do that. Sugar isn't bad, eating after 7pm isn't bad, daily weigh-ins aren't bad, weekly weigh-ins aren't bad, etc etc etc. But when someone starts projecting their own 'parameters' on other people and then says that's the Truth, it makes me question the legitimacy of everything they post.0 -
flyingtanuki wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
See e.g., http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/biology/bio1003/organic.htmlCarbohydrates are the main energy-storage molecules in most organisms. They are also important structural components for many organisms. The building blocks of carbohydrates are small molecules called sugars, composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbohydrates are classified according to the number of sugar molecules they contain. Monosaccharides, such as glucose, fructose, ribose, and galactose, contain only one sugar molecule. Disaccharides, such as sucrose, maltose and lactose, contain two sugar molecules linked together. Polysaccharides, such as starch, glycogen, cellulose and chitin, contain many sugar molecules linked together.
- Cellulose, a fiber, is a polysaccharide.
- Carbohydrates are built of sugars.
In the context of digestion, Fiber is meaningless. It's DOA.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
Completely false.
Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
For emphasis...0 -
What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.0 -
*sigh* First part of my last post was a quote from lemurcat. Haven't figured out how to get it to copy partial quotes.0
-
What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.0 -
I disagree with this for a number of reasons, some of which have already been covered.FitnessTim wrote: »
While it is a company's job to make their products appealing that does not take them off the hook. Are the cigarette companies right to continue to push their products to kids because it is not their responsibility. They can't push it to kids in the US because it has since become illegal to do so but they do so in developing countries..
I’m not sure what hook you’re talking about. There is no hood aside from maybe the FDA. If they approve a product for general consumption, any duty these companies have has been met.FitnessTim wrote: »Knowingly making a product for profit that contributes to the poor health of consumers IS malevolent. It isn't illegal but it is wrong. The difference between selling cigarettes and selling Coke is that the jury is still out on whether or not Coke does in fact increase the health risks.
I take issue with all three components bolded above. It is perfectly possible to eat fast food or candy bars and maintain good health, and it’s up to the consumer to find that balance. These things only “contribute" to poor health if eaten in excess, like anything else. Finally, I’m not sure that the companies “know” anything of the sort, and even if they did, are you seriously suggesting they stop manufacturing e.g. candy bars? Their mandate isn’t to police the eating habits of people.FitnessTim wrote: »At the very least, with the prevalence of childhood obesity, products with a high percentage of calories coming from sugar should not be marketed to children.
I second the view that parents have the responsibility to do this. Nonetheless, you are aware that fruit has more calories from sugar than a Snickers bar? I know you purport the way they’re processed is different, but this does not change the fact that an excess of calories is what leads to weight gain. Should fruit producers warn people to enjoy their product in moderation?
Large orange (270g): 132 calories, 23g sugar, 92 calories from sugar (69.7%)
Red grapes (126g): 88 calories, 20g sugar, 80 calories from sugar (90.9%)
VS
Regular Snickers bar (59g): 280 calories, 30g sugar, 120 calories from sugar (42.6%)
Skittles (2.6oz): 250 calories, 47g sugar, 188 calories from sugar (75.2%)FitnessTim wrote: »Just because the general population is not well informed, or even misinformed, that doesn't mean they should be fair game to companies who do know better.
I disagree. I take responsibility for my choices, and so should the general population. Educating people on eating in a way that maintains their health and an appropriate weight is what should happen, not prohibiting Nestle from manufacturing candy bars or from advertising them to certain segments.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).0 -
I try to avoid all processed foods that contain added sugar and try to only eat natural sugars and even with that I go over the daily recommended goal. There's not much you can eat that doesn't have added sugar that's also quick or "on the run" type snacks so eating a healthier lowered sugar diet not only takes a lot of dedication but it takes a lot of time. I pre-plan my menu's and pre-portion my foods. It's been working weight wise though, I'm finally beating the slump...0
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).
Looking at my kids vs me and my siblings growing up-my kids play outside way less than what me and my sisters did, and yet my kids are all thin, compared to my sisters who were both overweight. And my kids eat out regularly, whereas we never ate out as kids. So what's different?
I observe how my kids eat and they hardly ever eat all the food on their plates, and will turn down food if they're not hungry-regardless if it's pizza, candy, etc. Yesterday my 10 year old daughter and I went to Mcds for lunch and she ordered a double cheeseburger, small fry and then a hot fudge sundae. She ate 3/4 of the cheeseburger, left most of the fries on the tray and then only ate half of the sundae. She ate until full and then stopped. I wish I could bottle that up and sell it-I'd be rich
Why are some people better in tune with their body's hunger signals than others? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about. 0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).
I don’t disagree. It didn’t help that I was of the “clean your plate” mentality. Like Sara is saying, knowing when to stop eating is pretty amazing. These days I eat about 70% of my lunch and then feel full. What do I do? I stop eating, set it aside, and finish it later mid-afternoon if hunger strikes. It’s amazing how long it took me to realize I can do that.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Exactly. Foods aren't eaten in a vaccuum and all that.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
All carbohydrates are saccharides and that word comes from the greek word for sugar.
Also Fiber is just a s***ton of glucose glued together (in layman's terms).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
All carbohydrates are saccharides and that word comes from the greek word for sugar.
Also Fiber is just a s***ton of glucose glued together (in layman's terms).
Is that more or less than a crapton? I can never remember...0 -
corriebenedict wrote: »I try to avoid all processed foods that contain added sugar and try to only eat natural sugars and even with that I go over the daily recommended goal. There's not much you can eat that doesn't have added sugar that's also quick or "on the run" type snacks so eating a healthier lowered sugar diet not only takes a lot of dedication but it takes a lot of time. I pre-plan my menu's and pre-portion my foods. It's been working weight wise though, I'm finally beating the slump...
sugar has nothing to do with your weight loss....what does, is the fact that you have restricted so many calorie dense foods and have now replaced them with less calorie dense foods.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
All carbohydrates are saccharides and that word comes from the greek word for sugar.
Also Fiber is just a s***ton of glucose glued together (in layman's terms).
Is that more or less than a crapton? I can never remember...
The more expletive the word, the more it is supposed to symbolize. 1 cellulose = hundreds to thousands of glucose bonded together, it differs apparently.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »granturismo wrote: »
No, all carbohydrates are sugars. They're synonyms.
Not true. The difference between total carbs, fiber + sugar = starch. Fiber is NOT sugar. Fiber is included in total carbohydrates.
All carbohydrates are saccharides and that word comes from the greek word for sugar.
Also Fiber is just a s***ton of glucose glued together (in layman's terms).
Is that more or less than a crapton? I can never remember...
I think it's more. What I'm unclear on is whether it's a measurement of weight or volume.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
There are always exceptions and outliers, but the obesity rate has increased.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).
Yes, this.
I'm not saying anyone is predestined to get fat in any environment or that overweight people didn't exist before the last 20 years. obviously. I'm saying that the percentage of people who bother counting calories (or the like) and do it successfully is limited, for whatever reason, so environmental factors make a difference, on average. Is the US (currently, we shall see in 20 years) fatter than Europe because Americans are just lazier and more gluttonous? Or are there social and environmental differences? I think the latter, although I don't think that means Americans can't lose weight if we choose to or avoid becoming fat. (I don't hold anyone but myself responsible for my weight, but I also acknowledge it's a social issue, so thinking about causes is interesting and valuable.)0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I wasn't trying to oversimplify, and of course people are different. But I do think the prevalence of fast food and changing lifestyles has negatively impacted health in general, and specifically that of children.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).
I don’t disagree. It didn’t help that I was of the “clean your plate” mentality. Like Sara is saying, knowing when to stop eating is pretty amazing. These days I eat about 70% of my lunch and then feel full. What do I do? I stop eating, set it aside, and finish it later mid-afternoon if hunger strikes. It’s amazing how long it took me to realize I can do that.
I grew up with "clean your plate" parents, too! After moving out in college and as an adult, I had to learn that it was ok to stop eating when I was full and not when every scrap of food was gone from my plate. Even to this day as an adult when I go home I will sometimes get the "finish your ____" request from my parents.
My folks still do the "protein + veggie + salad + starch" equation when it comes to dinner. And salad used to be either iceberg lettuce or jello.
I love my Midwestern upbringing
0 -
SconnieCat wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).
I don’t disagree. It didn’t help that I was of the “clean your plate” mentality. Like Sara is saying, knowing when to stop eating is pretty amazing. These days I eat about 70% of my lunch and then feel full. What do I do? I stop eating, set it aside, and finish it later mid-afternoon if hunger strikes. It’s amazing how long it took me to realize I can do that.
I grew up with "clean your plate" parents, too! After moving out in college and as an adult, I had to learn that it was ok to stop eating when I was full and not when every scrap of food was gone from my plate. Even to this day as an adult when I go home I will sometimes get the "finish your ____" request from my parents.
My folks still do the "protein + veggie + salad + starch" equation when it comes to dinner. And salad used to be either iceberg lettuce or jello.
I love my Midwestern upbringing
That doesn’t sound like a bad equation to me . It makes such a big difference not to overeat. For a good part of my life, I’m not even sure I knew what it’s like to stop eating before I felt actually stuffed. It’s crazy! I still love food, and still eat lots of it, but just not all at once lol. 0 -
SconnieCat wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »What seems different now is that a lot of the things that were special occasions for us are commonplace now--fast food for numerous meals, giant sodas and "energy drinks" for kids, limitless sweets vs. a small afterschool snack.
But more significantly, social mores have changed. There were ideas about what a meal was, what snacks were and the role they should play, that most meals should be homecooked and eaten together as a family, etc., back when I was growing up that seem to no longer be in existence.
When I was a kid (mid 70s), soda was a treat we had on pizza night every few weeks. Nobody guzzled it daily. We ate at home, under the watchful eye of a parent. I remember a trip to McDonalds about 3 times, and that was as a family. The meals my mom prepared certainly were not always "healthy", but we were served reasonable portions of them and then sent outside to play. Lots of factors working against kids these days.
Your experience is not the same as mine. My mom cooked all our meals from scratch, and many of the ingredients came from our large garden (I have never been to a Mcds with my parents, ever). But my mom did not understand portion sizes and was obese while she ate those home cooked meals, and continues to have a bmi in the obese range while still eating mostly home cooked meals.
I eat at Mcds at least once a week and also have pizza out at least once a week (in the past two weeks I've had take out pizza 4 times and will have it again on Saturday), and my bmi is around 19.4. So I could argue that home cooked meals are inferior to fast food and pizza, and if my mom would eat out at Mcds and pizza more often, then she'd be thin. Or, it could be because I watch my calorie intake, regardless of where/what I eat and my mom does not.
There is no 'good old days'-people were overweight back then and they're overweight now (my family tree is obese going back several generations, way before fast food/processed food was even available). Calories and math.
I’m with you on this. I grew up on a farm, ate only food from our backyard or local farmers, ran around the hills all day long, and was still chubby growing up. Why? Because I ate too much. Calories and math is right.
Agreed to a point, but I believe obesity was less of an issue 30 years ago because we played outside from sun up to sun down, which left wayyyy more "margin for error" in our CICO (even though we weren't really tracking it).
I don’t disagree. It didn’t help that I was of the “clean your plate” mentality. Like Sara is saying, knowing when to stop eating is pretty amazing. These days I eat about 70% of my lunch and then feel full. What do I do? I stop eating, set it aside, and finish it later mid-afternoon if hunger strikes. It’s amazing how long it took me to realize I can do that.
I grew up with "clean your plate" parents, too! After moving out in college and as an adult, I had to learn that it was ok to stop eating when I was full and not when every scrap of food was gone from my plate. Even to this day as an adult when I go home I will sometimes get the "finish your ____" request from my parents.
My folks still do the "protein + veggie + salad + starch" equation when it comes to dinner. And salad used to be either iceberg lettuce or jello.
I love my Midwestern upbringing
Midwest here too-cracked me up this morning when my grandma called to talk about the food plan for a family get together for this weekend-she immediately offered to bring the jello salad lol. There has never been a get together without the jello 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions