Fed Up Documentary
Options
Replies
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »
I think that's great that works for you.Sarasmaintaining wrote: »My numbers are solid, my blood pressure is great, I have no health issues, I take no medication and I look decent in a two piece swimsuit, for being a 36 year old mom of three kids
I will say though that I think it's oversimplistic to state that simply losing weight will eliminate the likelihood of developing type II diabetes for everyone, although weight loss can certainly help reduce the risk. My maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather both had type II diabetes and were in the normal weight range--my grandfather being 5'8 and 140 lbs when he was diagnosed.
Perhaps my family is unusual but I doubt it.
Yep I can only go by my own experience, overweight=high glucose numbers. Weight loss=normal glucose numbers. And every family members who has/had T2 in my family is/was either overweight or obese.
On the other hand, my husband's grandma probably weighs 80lbs soaking wet and she's been a pre-diabetic for years. She's also had several strokes, surgery for clogged arteries, her blood pressure issues have sent her to the ER numerous times etc. But yet she is the poster child for the whole 'clean' eating movement-her diet is 99% whole foods, made from scratch, comes from their garden etc. In spite of this she's had more health problems than anyone I've ever known. Her husband is super healthy though and has no health issues. Sometimes this whole thing just doesn't make a whole lot of sense
And in my family no one seems to be diabetic, including my mom, who's been overweight or obese for years and had other health issues, and me, who had great blood sugar and cholesterol numbers even when I was overweight or obese (but I also never ate that much sugar, although my mom is a sugar fiend). Various people in my family, including my dad and my maternal grandfather have had cholesterol issues, and neither was ever overweight.
Anyway, based on this and my own numbers and current weight I really don't see a reason to worry about sugar.
I do have a friend who is T2 Diabetic and not overweight, but for him it really seems to be straight genetics.0 -
-
Yes. Read the studies yourself and make up your own mind, know what sort of flaws to look for in research studies, educate yourself. Good advice no matter the topic.cwolfman13 wrote: »IMO, the key to successfully fighting the obesity epidemic is education...people know jack *kitten* about actual nutrition.
I get the positive intent, but IMO that's not very practical advice. Most people have neither the time nor the inclination nor in many cases the knowledge/experience to wade through "studies". It's not their fault - humans just aren't built for that.
Better advice IMO would be find role models who are accessible and actually successful over the long term - and then emulate what they do.
0 -
I think the problem is that not everyone knows what they are or are not genetically predisposed towards.lemurcat12 wrote: »And in my family no one seems to be diabetic, including my mom, who's been overweight or obese for years and had other health issues, and me, who had great blood sugar and cholesterol numbers even when I was overweight or obese (but I also never ate that much sugar, although my mom is a sugar fiend). Various people in my family, including my dad and my maternal grandfather have had cholesterol issues, and neither was ever overweight.
Anyway, based on this and my own numbers and current weight I really don't see a reason to worry about sugar.
I do have a friend who is T2 Diabetic and not overweight, but for him it really seems to be straight genetics.
In context, the message "limit sugar" isn't necessarily a bad one. It's like the "watch your salt" recommendation that we've often heard--despite the fact that not everyone is reactive to sodium intake. But, in regards to genetic predisposition, that lack of knowledge will likely change as testing for these sorts of conditions becomes cheaper and more commonplace.
The diet I am on, keto, is admittedly a rather extreme diet when it comes to carb/sugar. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, because it's not necessary for everyone, I don't think--calorie restriction and exercise is probably enough. But for me, the benefits of cutting out sugar and refined carbohydrates was well worth it.
0 -
This was the worst documentary I have ever seen! I really wanted to stop watching, I ended up fast forwarding it and I honestly didn't find any substance in there.
0 -
-
Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad0
-
I'll give you that. But overall along with sugar consumption per capita, the average US citizen is consuming about 800+ calories more per day than they need. And trump that inadequate physical activity, it's the main reason obesity in the US is the highest in the world. Is it all that 800 calories from sugar? Maybe half, but the amount of high fat combined with the sugar (especially in the Southern states where A LOT of food is fried) is more than likely the reason.MoiAussi93 wrote: »Just if people don't know, there are at least 3 countries that consume more sugar than the US. And they don't even come close to the obesity rates that the US has.
http://www.sucden.com/statistics/4_world-sugar-consumption
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're interpreting that incorrectly. That is total consumption, not PER CAPITA consumption. India may consume more sugar than us, but they have 1.3 billion people. The US has the highest per capita consumption, meaning the "average" American eats more sugar than anyone else in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/05/where-people-around-the-world-eat-the-most-sugar-and-fat/
This article has recent data.
Still even countries like Brazil with a smaller population as a whole consumes more sugar yet doesn't have the obesity issues that face the US.
It's more than just about sugar. It's overall about how US citizens don't monitor how much they consume a day.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
According to that link, our fat consumption is 65.5 g per, which is within the guidelines for a 2000 cal diet. We're eating a lot more than 2000 cals, but the excess is not from fat.
0 -
glfernandes828 wrote: »Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad
Ugh, added sugar is not the 'number one cause of rapid weight gain.' Eating at a calorie surplus causes weight gain. Period.
0 -
billieljaime wrote: »It's a good documentary, people keep on saying it's about "weight loss" i saw it as more in terms of health. And it seems people are forgetting is that sugar is a fast acting carbohydrate, processed carbhoydrates act in the same way.
I never seen someone suggest "the majority of your calories should come from processed/sugary foods." I wonder why...
because they are calorie heavy not evil
what makes them calorie heavy? Compare something like broccoli, to gatorade.
Roughly 300g of broccoli is 20 carbs, and 20oz of gatorade is also 20g of carbs. You'll say it's more calorie dense, well just add water to it to dilute the calorie content to get the same volume. Volume is the same, carb count is the same, one is just more processed, which would fill you up more dilute gatorade or broccoli for the same volume?
To be more specific broccoli density is 0.4g/ml. 300g of broccoli is the volume of 1.2L. Drinking 1.2liters of dilute gatorade. What do you think will keep you fuller longer? Calories are the same, volume is the same...hence calorie density is the same, so now what's the problem?
Blend the 300g of broccoli into a 1.2L smoothie and drink it. See if that leaves you full as long as actually eating it. Then drink 1.2L of broccoli... juice? and see if that leaves you full as long.0 -
The numbers from the FAO are a bit different than those from the USDA.
That link is misleading. Alan Aragon had the same views, here is part of an article i wrote...stevencloser wrote: »This says it better than I could.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
"There is a famous blog article called, “The Bitter Truth, Fructose Alarmism” It’s pretty much a post saying, Dr.Lustig is wrong, the obesity epidemic isn’t caused by an increase in sugars.(Which is one of Dr.Lustig’s Claims). It even has data from USDA of the increase of food inake in % from 1970 -2007.
• Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
• Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
• Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
• Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
• Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
• Added fat kcals are up 7%,
• Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
Ignoring the fact that protein sources decreased (which is a huge factor). The only thing that increased is flour and cereal products, and fat calories. Looking at the GI index, the index is a representation of the effect of food on a person’s blood glucose level. The higher the GI index, the higher the blood glucose increases, thus the higher insulin increases. There are many “cereal/flour products” that have the same GI as sucrose (table sugar), they literally have the same effect on our blood glucose levels as eating pure sugar.
Most of us know there is a “fat scare” going on. People intentionally go out of their way to avoid dietary fats. If people go out of their way to avoid fats, how did the fat calories increase by 7%? Think about it… do most obese people, sit there eating flour based products that are fat free? Flour in its purest form? Think of bread products, pastries things like that. A lot of these contain fat. Looking at the GI of most flours, here are the results."
I am not saying "sugar is bad" or processed foods are bad. The issue is it's a multifacted issue. Processed foods do contain more calories, they are less filling(you're going to eat more of it), also lacks fiber, etc...
All these things are related. To say, you're eating sugary foods is synonymous with saying "i am eating calorie dense food, that's low and fiber and less filling.I will likely eat more of it.(which will make the problem worse)" This is also related to the insulin, and so on. It's all related.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4175e.pdf
According to them, cereal consumption went down by a bit (30 calories, 2%), at least in the last 20 years. But they agree that fat went up (by 100 calories, 2%). Dairy went down by 1%, or a about 15 calories. Sugars stayed the same percentually meaning volume increased only proportional to the rise in energy intake by 36 calories. Everything else pretty much stayed at the same proportions as before while calorie intake rises too.
So what does that mean? People are eating more of almost everything, there is no one culprit. But the numbers also say that fat intake increased faster than everything else. My guess is that this is a result ofthe fat scare being over.0 -
On this website, if there is no acceptable proof, the person who posts get a lot of criticism ..however i'm pulling up my big girl pants to say "sugar should be consumed very sparingly ". Limit fruit to 2 or 3 servings per day--Diabetics and prediabetics probably have different requirements.
I would agree completely for anyone leading a very sedentary lifestyle. However, for your more active group, and especially athletes, sugar is not the evil everyone wants it to be. Sugar is a necessity to keep your body supplied with instant energy (glucose).
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »This says it better than I could.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
Excellent! Thank you.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I think the documentary has a big political slant but let's be very very very clear on this - you cannot outrun a bad diet. You have to eat nutritiously, now for some people that means having candy/cake whatever - but that's not the staple of the diet, but for others that means you cannot touch added sugars at all. I know I am one of the latter. Having been a former chocolatier and having grown up surrounded by sugar all the time, I can flat out tell you that increased sugar intake over the course of many years WILL cause a problem.
Care to finally elaborate on what you mean by that exactly? "you cannot outrun a bad diet"
It means you can't eat tons of calories and expect to burn them all off with exercise and lose weight.0 -
Ted's definition is different.0
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »glfernandes828 wrote: »Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad
Ugh, added sugar is not the 'number one cause of rapid weight gain.' Eating at a calorie surplus causes weight gain. Period.
It's a fair statement for Americans in general - SAD is so heavy in sugar- and refined-carbs that if all you did was drop those, you end up with good macros and a reasonable caloric deficit.
It's not the only way to do it, of course, but it will work, and it will certainly be more healthy than SAD.
The usual exceptions for highly active people apply - but then those people aren't typically SADers anyway.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »glfernandes828 wrote: »Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad
Ugh, added sugar is not the 'number one cause of rapid weight gain.' Eating at a calorie surplus causes weight gain. Period.
It's a fair statement for Americans in general - SAD is so heavy in sugar- and refined-carbs that if all you did was drop those, you end up with good macros and a reasonable caloric deficit.
It's not the only way to do it, of course, but it will work, and it will certainly be more healthy than SAD.
The usual exceptions for highly active people apply - but then those people aren't typically SADers anyway.
Even if the average American (TM) would drop added sugar alltogether, they'd still consume over 3000 calories per day.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »glfernandes828 wrote: »Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad
Ugh, added sugar is not the 'number one cause of rapid weight gain.' Eating at a calorie surplus causes weight gain. Period.
It's a fair statement for Americans in general - SAD is so heavy in sugar- and refined-carbs that if all you did was drop those, you end up with good macros and a reasonable caloric deficit.
It's not the only way to do it, of course, but it will work, and it will certainly be more healthy than SAD.
The usual exceptions for highly active people apply - but then those people aren't typically SADers anyway.
Even if the average American (TM) would drop added sugar alltogether, they'd still consume over 3000 calories per day.
That's based on a food production number, not a food consumption. Once wastage is accounted for, the average daily intake is around 2800 calories (source:USDA), of which around 500 is average caloric intake of added sweeteners (source:USDA).
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions