Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Does anyone else find this creepy?

245678

Replies

  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.

    You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?

    Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    What gives me more a shudder than eye roll is the fact that Coca Cola attempted to secretly fund research to support their agenda that source of calories does not matter for weight loss, but instead that physical activity is more important. But that's not how honest scientific research works. You don't start the research already knowing what it's going to say...

    https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/03/anti-obesity-astroturfing-fails-coca-cola-and-junk-food-philanthropy/

    And now the insipid PSAs? It's too much.

    Everyone funds studies to promote their own product. Like minniestar55 above said, it's not that Nike really has your health and best interest in mind. They just want to sell you more products. I mean, Coca Cola also sells bottled water, but we don't question studies telling us to stay hydrated. Big corn conglomerates will fund studies saying ethanol is somehow "better" than regular gasoline. Is a car company advertising how fuel efficient their vehicles are the same level of creepiness? It's a pretty similar premise. Or Chevron trying to tell you how clean/efficient their fuel is. There are plenty of fat/unhealthy people out there who don't drink soda, it's not the only contributor to obesity. Also, I think we can all agree being more active would be beneficial to society. There are studies showing sitting too much is bad for you, or that those with diabetes and other conditions who add in walking are healthier than those that don't.

    I can't make you see what they did was clearly wrong and a conflict of interest (also why did they try to hide their involvement in funding the research?), but they did get a "Shonky" award and the fake "nonprofit" promptly closed. But hey, if everyone does it, it must be ok, right? That's logical.
    edited April 2016
  • RobD520RobD520 Posts: 419Member Member Posts: 419Member Member
    The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.

    If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.

    Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do! :smile:

    Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.

    Can you please provide a source for this?

    Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.

    I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.
  • Serah87Serah87 Posts: 5,498Member Member Posts: 5,498Member Member
    RobD520 wrote: »
    The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.

    If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.

    Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do! :smile:

    Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.

    Can you please provide a source for this?

    Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.

    I don't think the things Mayo Clinic includes under dietary factors is intended to be an exhaustive list.

    My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.

    You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can blame one thing.

    But it's a lot easier to demonize a particular food than it is to look at the context in which people actually become obese.

    Full calorie soda consumption is falling in America. If soda caused obesity, we'd be seeing a corresponding rate of weight loss. Spoiler alert . . .

    Agree.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.

    You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?

    Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.

    Yes, They looked at sugar availability, not sugar consumption, and still found a statistically significant variation in diabetes rates independent of other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. Sounds pretty impressive to me, but I guess they made big mistake there. If only someone had just told them! Doh.
    edited April 2016
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.

    You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?

    Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.

    Yes, They looked at sugar availability, not sugar consumption, and still found a statistically significant variation in diabetes rates independent of other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. Sounds pretty impressive to me, but I guess they made big mistake there. If only someone had just told them! Doh.

    So, you admit that the study didn't actually measure sugar consumption? Then why are you asking people about their soda consumption?
    edited April 2016
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    That link states 150 calorie increase in sugar, not 150 calories of soda. Soda was used as an approximate reference.

    You're implying there is a difference between 150 calories of sugar and 150 calories of soda?

    Sorry, no. I didn't type that properly. I was trying to make the point that Bane made about the study looking at the availability of sugar, not a consumption of 1 can of soda. I worded it poorly. My bad.

    Yes, They looked at sugar availability, not sugar consumption, and still found a statistically significant variation in diabetes rates independent of other food types (including fibers, meats, fruits, oils, cereals), total calories, overweight and obesity, period-effects, and several socioeconomic variables such as aging, urbanization and income. Sounds pretty impressive to me, but I guess they made big mistake there. If only someone had just told them! Doh.

    So, you admit that the study didn't actually measure sugar consumption?

    Um, yes, you can read the abstract too, I assume.
  • brower47brower47 Posts: 16,369Member Member Posts: 16,369Member Member
    Nope. I don't find it creepy but maybe our definitions of creepy are different.
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    The more active you are, the higher your TDEE, which makes it easier to fit treats/soda into your diet in moderation while still losing/maintaining your weight. Many people can easily have a serving of soda if they want and still hit their calorie and macro goals for the day.

    If someone chooses to over-consume anything, whether it's soda or smoked salmon, that's their choice.

    Of course Pepsi and Coca Cola are trying to make a profit - they're businesses. It's what businesses do! :smile:

    Question for you, is 150 calories of soda per day overconsumption? about one can. Because that will increase your risk of diabetes 11 times versus another source of calories.

    Can you please provide a source for this?

    Since Mayo Clinic doesn't even list soda consumption as a risk factor for T2DM (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/risk-factors/con-20033091), I find it hard to believe that someone at a healthy weight, living an active lifestyle, with a balanced diet and no family history of diabetes would be put more at risk by having 150 calories of soda from time to time.
    When you say "from time to time", is that including if one is choosing to do it every single day, 365 days a year?

  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    Question, would you be comfortable adding 150 cal of honey into your diet?
    edited April 2016
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,413Member Member Posts: 9,413Member Member
    Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?

    qzq5984hf0hk.jpg

    I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?

    Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.


    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873

    It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.
  • scorpiophoenixscorpiophoenix Posts: 222Member Member Posts: 222Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    Not sure why it would be "creepy" given it's the premise on which MFP is based it's probably viewed as perfectly rational here.

    This. That sticker says "Balance" and that's the most sound advice ever, regardless of their motivation. Moderation in all things. Calories in vs calories out for weight loss,and no - it doesn't matter where those calories come from.
    My point was the other risk factors - overweight, sedentary, family history, high cholesterol/triglycerides, hypertension, ethnicity - play a larger part than consuming soda/sugar in moderate amounts.

    You have to look at the context of someone's diet and lifestyle as a whole. You can't blame one thing.

    Also this. Example: my mom never drinks soda is overweight and got the diabetes; my dad drinks almost a liter (of full calorie pepsi) a day is borderline underweight and doesn't have diabetes. If soda itself caused obesity and diabetes that would be the other way around.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    If you find this creepy, I hate to think of how you view 90 percent of the conversations that happen on this website. This isn't creepy. It's actually really good advice and a good campaign.

    And here we are.

    This is why it's a debate. Just cluing you to that fact that this nonsense about "all calories are equal" is intentionally and discretely propagated by major food companies for very good reason... profit and to undermine real evidence. If they can't get the fake nonprofit to endorse them, at least they've got the PSAs and some of you preaching their message.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunnerT1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 9,863Member Member Posts: 9,863Member Member
    The only problem is that it isn't clear whether "balance" means that people should or should not consume a bottle of soda, or whether or not they should choose 0 calorie diet soda instead. The sign is just for awareness, but prompts each consumer to determine what that means within the context of his/her personal circumstances. How is that a bad thing?
  • ReaderGirl3ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868Member Member Posts: 868Member Member
    Has anyone else seen this on the soda fridges in stores?

    qzq5984hf0hk.jpg

    I've seen this "PSA" several times lately while out getting groceries, and I'm just creeped out. I looked it up... they've been funding research and trying to turn public opinion toward exercise as more important than diet in the current obesity epidemic. Since when do Coca Cola and Pepsi unite in concern over consumers' health?

    Sorry, guys, but it's clear what you really care about: sales and PROFIT. If you get people to believe the myth that liquid sugar is just a few harmless "extra calories" they need to burn off (not that, for one thing, it independently raises one's risk of diabetes by 11 fold compared to an increase in calories from any other source), you can keep uneducated consumers buying and drinking. Please, just get your nose out of health, nutrition, and research. It's so unscrupulous.


    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873

    It's not a PSA, it's an advertisement. Ads should be ignored. Ads are not your friends. The information they present is biased. Their purpose is to help convince you to part with your money, sometimes its worthwhile and other times it's not, but in either case it's not an unbiased source of information.

    Yeah, I totally see it as an advertisement as well. Confused as to why someone would think this is some sort of non-biased educational notice?
This discussion has been closed.