Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does anyone else find this creepy?
Replies
-
rhtexasgal wrote: »This is a total non-issue for me because I decided to quit drinking soda. I would rather eat my sugar than drink it. An ice cream cone or a candy bar sounds a lot better than a single can of soda. At least there is a modicum of nutritional value in them.
As for the creep factor, that company is just playing it smart, working both sides of the equation so to speak. I just ignore the crap that soda companies spew ...
But does your ice cream cone or Candy bar have a sign to tell you to balance your intake with your expenditure? That is the real concern here4 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.
That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.
You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
The Mayo Clinic article looks like it's written at a 6th grade level, like most patient education sheets. It doesn't mention diet at all. Is this supposed to mean that diet plays no part in the development of Type 2 Diabetes?
As far as your question: What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
Yeah, that's another topic and a little convoluted. Not sure where you're trying to go there, but just start another topic.
It is not another topic - the study you posted discusses diabetes risk; I am discussing diabetes risk, and how other risk factors are weighted against soda consumption. I don't see how it's a "different topic" unless you're just trying to avoid discussing it.
I'd like to know what you mean by "convoluted."
Convoluted
adjective
1. (especially of an argument, story, or sentence) extremely complex and difficult to follow.
"its convoluted narrative encompasses all manner of digressions"
synonyms: complicated, complex, involved, elaborate, serpentine, labyrinthine, tortuous, tangled, Byzantine; More
2. intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.
"walnuts come in hard and convoluted shells"
I find your question
What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
convoluted because 1. dietary habits and soda consumption would be intertwined 2. other risk factors for diabetes is a huge category 3. not sure what you mean by moderate (daily? every other day? weekly?)
So... my answer is yes and no and either way?
I posed my definition of moderation upthread, but I'll quote it here. I don't think that it's fair for you to tell someone to "go back and read the thread" when you obviously haven't read the responses yourself.It would depend on the person's overall diet and lifestyle. For me, with a calorie goal of about 1600 to lose weight, I prefer not to drink my calories, so moderation for me might be one regular soda per month (though I drink diet soda quite often).
A fit and active male with plenty of LBM who maintains on 3,000 calories and rides their bike 50 miles per day could probably have one a day and it would still be "in moderation."
Context matters.
And thanks for the dictionary reference - I know what the word means, I don't understand why you saw my question as "extremely complex and difficult to follow." I was asking why you thought soda was such a large risk factor given that the other risk factors are likely the main ones to blame for contracting the disease.
Sugar consumption is the risk factor. Soda is liquid sugar. Ok, I can't nurse this thread any longer... Be back much later.
You're claiming that sugar (soda) consumption is the main risk factor in contracting diabetes. It is not.6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.
That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.
You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
The Mayo Clinic article looks like it's written at a 6th grade level, like most patient education sheets. It doesn't mention diet at all. Is this supposed to mean that diet plays no part in the development of Type 2 Diabetes?
As far as your question: What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
Yeah, that's another topic and a little convoluted. Not sure where you're trying to go there, but just start another topic.
Diet plays a role in the sense that over consumption can cause obesity, which can cause T2D. There is no one food responsible for it though...
Diabetes is at its core a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. I don't know how else to say this: you're just plain wrong.
Ask the people who have type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes what "one food" their doctor tells them to limit or count...
Now you've completely moved the goal posts.
Having diabetes and being at risk for diabetes are two different things. Just because a person with diabetes processes sugar differently than someone without diabetes, does not mean that carbohydrates/sugar cause diabetes.
The main risk factors are well-known and are outlined in the Mayo Clinic article I posted.
Just to be 100% clear. You are implying to me that Type 2 Diabetes is not caused by over-consumption of carbohydrates. If that is the case, we cannot agree to disagree. You are just plain wrong. Regardless of risk factors, the disease would not happen without the over-consumption of carbohydrates. Period.
No, you're wrong. It's the over consumption of food, period. There are plenty of healthy individuals consuming 50-80% of their diets on carbohydrates...
Hornsby and his abs are very correct here.
How you doin? :insertjoeyvoice:3 -
I don't find the advertising sticker "creepy." It's an ad. I would treat it like I treat any other advertisement. I ignore, block or mock it.
What I do find disturbing, though, is that I have two different types of ad-blocking mechanisms on my computer yet I have been subjected to an ad right here, posted in the OP of this thread. Maybe OP is really a shill for Pepsi.
J/K.
Question to the OP, though. What do you think about the marketing gimmicks for so-called "healthy" products? Like the ones for greek yogurts and ones that talk about "real food"? How do you know where they get the information for their claims? And Panera bread's commercial--I'd like to blow my T.V. up whenever I hear "And clean and real...." OMG, shoot me now. Companies use whatever marketing strategies they think fit their consumer base or the current trends in consumerism. Being healthy, fit and active, and eating "clean" and "real" and all that hokum is the trend of the times, so why wouldn't they use those to their advantage?
A corporation's mission is to make money. The End. I thought that was common knowledge, though. Anyone who doesn't realize that? Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. They don't love you, they only love what you have in your wallet and will do whatever it takes to get it, and sometimes that means twisting the truth or playing on your emotions and beliefs. Your job is to be smart enough to see through it.
11 -
Wowsa this thread
Brought me out of hiding ...well this thread @BecomingBane new AV and @Hornsby abs of courseaqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.
That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.
You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
The Mayo Clinic article looks like it's written at a 6th grade level, like most patient education sheets. It doesn't mention diet at all. Is this supposed to mean that diet plays no part in the development of Type 2 Diabetes?
As far as your question: What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
Yeah, that's another topic and a little convoluted. Not sure where you're trying to go there, but just start another topic.
Diet plays a role in the sense that over consumption can cause obesity, which can cause T2D. There is no one food responsible for it though...
Diabetes is at its core a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. I don't know how else to say this: you're just plain wrong.
Ask the people who have type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes what "one food" their doctor tells them to limit or count...
Diabetes is not a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. By definition, diabetus mellitus, of either type, is a disease of elevated glucose levels. That's the literal definition. For type 2, the usual mechanism is that a person's cells become insensitive to insulin, not insensitive to glucose. Such individuals still have their insulin levels react to glucose (carbohydrates) and protein, all too much in fact. The problem is in that the cells no longer react as strongly to the insulin.11 -
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=db-slabnav
Myth: If you are overweight or obese, you will eventually develop type 2 diabetes.
Fact: Being overweight is a risk factor for developing this disease, but other risk factors such as family history, ethnicity and age also play a role. Unfortunately, too many people disregard the other risk factors for diabetes and think that weight is the only risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Most overweight people never develop type 2 diabetes, and many people with type 2 diabetes are at a normal weight or only moderately overweight.
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=db-slabnav#sthash.VeFlhtwT.dpuf1 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.
That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.
You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
The Mayo Clinic article looks like it's written at a 6th grade level, like most patient education sheets. It doesn't mention diet at all. Is this supposed to mean that diet plays no part in the development of Type 2 Diabetes?
As far as your question: What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
Yeah, that's another topic and a little convoluted. Not sure where you're trying to go there, but just start another topic.
It is not another topic - the study you posted discusses diabetes risk; I am discussing diabetes risk, and how other risk factors are weighted against soda consumption. I don't see how it's a "different topic" unless you're just trying to avoid discussing it.
I'd like to know what you mean by "convoluted."
Convoluted
adjective
1. (especially of an argument, story, or sentence) extremely complex and difficult to follow.
"its convoluted narrative encompasses all manner of digressions"
synonyms: complicated, complex, involved, elaborate, serpentine, labyrinthine, tortuous, tangled, Byzantine; More
2. intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.
"walnuts come in hard and convoluted shells"
I find your question
What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
convoluted because 1. dietary habits and soda consumption would be intertwined 2. other risk factors for diabetes is a huge category 3. not sure what you mean by moderate (daily? every other day? weekly?)
So... my answer is yes and no and either way?
I posed my definition of moderation upthread, but I'll quote it here. I don't think that it's fair for you to tell someone to "go back and read the thread" when you obviously haven't read the responses yourself.It would depend on the person's overall diet and lifestyle. For me, with a calorie goal of about 1600 to lose weight, I prefer not to drink my calories, so moderation for me might be one regular soda per month (though I drink diet soda quite often).
A fit and active male with plenty of LBM who maintains on 3,000 calories and rides their bike 50 miles per day could probably have one a day and it would still be "in moderation."
Context matters.
And thanks for the dictionary reference - I know what the word means, I don't understand why you saw my question as "extremely complex and difficult to follow." I was asking why you thought soda was such a large risk factor given that the other risk factors are likely the main ones to blame for contracting the disease.
Sugar consumption is the risk factor. Soda is liquid sugar. Ok, I can't nurse this thread any longer... Be back much later.
You're claiming that sugar (soda) consumption is the main risk factor in contracting diabetes. It is not.
I meant to clarify based on your statement, that sugar consumption was the risk factor in question, not soda consumption. Never said anything about it being "such a large risk factor." Of course, there are many many risk factors to tangle out. I simply shared the study that link sugar availability to diabetes prevalence.0 -
since the question is do i find it creepy?
no0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.
That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.
You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
You're welcome to post another thread regarding that topic.
lol0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you don't think it's a problem, that's your prerogative. It seems Forbes reported on it, so if you want more information about the issue, here's an article for you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehnergarth/2015/12/02/coca-coca-shuts-down-anti-obesity-network-but-still-teaches-energy-balance-in-schools/#70a13ada6d31
The now-defunct GEBN is only one of numerous campaigns, programs and organizations that Big Soda uses to spread its unscientific message of energy balance. The soda industry is even in our schools telling children as young as two, ‘don’t drink less soda, just exercise more.’
Public health experts have long criticized the soda industry’s focus on energy balance as a tactic to deflect attention from its unhealthy portfolio of sugary drinks.
It seems "public health experts" and I share similar views. If you disagree, that's your prerogative too. If someone else would offer research instead of opinion and anecdote, that would be great too.
That doesn't change the glaring problems with the study that you posted, which other people have pointed out and you've yet to counter.
You also did not respond to the Mayo Clinic link that I posted that outlined the main risk factors for diabetes (soda not being one of them). What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
The Mayo Clinic article looks like it's written at a 6th grade level, like most patient education sheets. It doesn't mention diet at all. Is this supposed to mean that diet plays no part in the development of Type 2 Diabetes?
As far as your question: What would your opinion be on the argument that the context of one's dietary and lifestyle habits in conjunction with the other risk factors for diabetes matters more than moderate soda consumption within one's calorie goals?
Yeah, that's another topic and a little convoluted. Not sure where you're trying to go there, but just start another topic.
Diet plays a role in the sense that over consumption can cause obesity, which can cause T2D. There is no one food responsible for it though...
Diabetes is at its core a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. I don't know how else to say this: you're just plain wrong.
Ask the people who have type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes what "one food" their doctor tells them to limit or count...
Now you've completely moved the goal posts.
Having diabetes and being at risk for diabetes are two different things. Just because a person with diabetes processes sugar differently than someone without diabetes, does not mean that carbohydrates/sugar cause diabetes.
The main risk factors are well-known and are outlined in the Mayo Clinic article I posted.
Just to be 100% clear. You are implying to me that Type 2 Diabetes is not caused by over-consumption of carbohydrates. If that is the case, we cannot agree to disagree. You are just plain wrong. Regardless of risk factors, the disease would not happen without the over-consumption of carbohydrates. Period.
Type 2 diabetes is caused by overconsumption of energy in general and inactivity all of which lead to obesity...and while it is possible to be diabetic and not be obese, most people who have type 2 are in fact, substantially overweight or obese.
Sugar is a contributor in that it is really easy to eat a crap ton of calories in sugar and overeat.
You know all of those little gel packs that cyclists and runners and whatnot use to fuel their endurance activities? They're pretty much sugar...I don't see too many cyclists at substantial risk for diabetes. If anything, many of them are at greater risk for general malnourishment given some of their riding weights.7 -
Nope. Not creepy.2
-
I'd hate to see how you would react to things that are actually creepy, must be terrified lol4
-
animalrob37 wrote: »Of course its creepy. The way some of you act you must be a bunch of corporation apologists, shouldn't you be at a Trump rally or something. Corporations are almost all scum, now that is the truth.
You do realize that "corporation" just means "legally recognized group of people doing business together"?3 -
animalrob37 wrote: »Of course its creepy. The way some of you act you must be a bunch of corporation apologists, shouldn't you be at a Trump rally or something. Corporations are almost all scum, now that is the truth.
You do realize that "corporation" just means "legally recognized group of people doing business together"?
Yeah, evil people.
ETA: Shill.3 -
Next week:
Coca Cola: "Have a nice day! "
You: "That motherfudger."16 -
Dear Posters,
This topic has been reported numerous times, so you all know that means. Topic is closed for review.
kgeyser
MFP Moderator
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions