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.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Options
Replies
-
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
When I was a kid, we did not have video games in the home. We did not have 1,000 channels to surf through on the television. There was no virtual reality, there was just reality. We rode our bikes, we played tag, manhunt, hide and seek etc. As a parent now, I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle to keep my 5 year old active. The opportunities to be inactive are more prevalent then when I was a kid. He loves the iPad, the tv etc. He watches and plays tv, iPad and games on the educational side so I am a little more reluctant to stop him but still it's the same thing, I have to make sure he gets outside, gets to the park etc.
The food, IMO, has not really changed all that much. What the media focus on has changed. When I was a kid it was fat, as I have grown older it's carbs and most recently sugar (which is carbs). What has absolutely changed is activity. Kids are just not as active anymore...1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
When I was a kid, we did not have video games in the home. We did not have 1,000 channels to surf through on the television. There was no virtual reality, there was just reality. We rode our bikes, we played tag, manhunt, hide and seek etc. As a parent now, I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle to keep my 5 year old active. The opportunities to be inactive are more prevalent then when I was a kid. He loves the iPad, the tv etc. He watches and plays tv, iPad and games on the educational side so I am a little more reluctant to stop him but still it's the same thing, I have to make sure he gets outside, gets to the park etc.
The food, IMO, has not really changed all that much. What the media focus on has changed. When I was a kid it was fat, as I have grown older it's carbs and most recently sugar (which is carbs). What has absolutely changed is activity. Kids are just not as active anymore...
It's interesting that you mention VR as a problem. In fact, it might end up being the solution. Check out the Virtuix Omni. If that thing goes live, and doesn't cost as much as a used car, I am in. Playing Bethesda games by actually walking, running, "shooting", etc.? I am in.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
Yes Jason, it was never an issue. It became an issue as I got older, my metabolism slowed due to less activity. With a heavier workload at school there was less free time to play. Only as I got older did I have to "watch" what I ate. My parents made sure, regardless, that my diet was well balanced which I in turn now do for my son. He gets his treats, drinks his juice, eats his deadly waffles. But, he is a kid and plays like a kid. He runs, jumps, hides, wrestles etc.
I assure you, I am perfectly healthy...
So please, STOP overanalyzing this stuff, because it goes nowhere.5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
When I was a kid, we did not have video games in the home. We did not have 1,000 channels to surf through on the television. There was no virtual reality, there was just reality. We rode our bikes, we played tag, manhunt, hide and seek etc. As a parent now, I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle to keep my 5 year old active. The opportunities to be inactive are more prevalent then when I was a kid. He loves the iPad, the tv etc. He watches and plays tv, iPad and games on the educational side so I am a little more reluctant to stop him but still it's the same thing, I have to make sure he gets outside, gets to the park etc.
The food, IMO, has not really changed all that much. What the media focus on has changed. When I was a kid it was fat, as I have grown older it's carbs and most recently sugar (which is carbs). What has absolutely changed is activity. Kids are just not as active anymore...
It's interesting that you mention VR as a problem. In fact, it might end up being the solution. Check out the Virtuix Omni. If that thing goes live, and doesn't cost as much as a used car, I am in. Playing Bethesda games by actually walking, running, "shooting", etc.? I am in.
It's a far cry better then doing it sitting on your *kitten*
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
When I was a kid, we did not have video games in the home. We did not have 1,000 channels to surf through on the television. There was no virtual reality, there was just reality. We rode our bikes, we played tag, manhunt, hide and seek etc. As a parent now, I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle to keep my 5 year old active. The opportunities to be inactive are more prevalent then when I was a kid. He loves the iPad, the tv etc. He watches and plays tv, iPad and games on the educational side so I am a little more reluctant to stop him but still it's the same thing, I have to make sure he gets outside, gets to the park etc.
The food, IMO, has not really changed all that much. What the media focus on has changed. When I was a kid it was fat, as I have grown older it's carbs and most recently sugar (which is carbs). What has absolutely changed is activity. Kids are just not as active anymore...
My 15 year old boy is quite adapt with computers and programming now. However he wasn't allowed really any computer time when he was young. Even now he only gets a couple hours a day, mostly because it is needed for his homework. I don't think it hurt him at all. Kids learn really well with human interaction.
We used to read to our kids a lot. I would read English books and my wife mostly read Japanese books to the kids. When my son was 4 I was bored to tears by most of the children's book. I grabbed a biography of Benjamin Franklin and started reading that. He really started complaining but I got him to agree to just listen to the first chapter. When we finished that chapter he begged me to keep reading. It took a week or two but we finished the book and after that we actually read a lot of interesting books together. It was a fun period.
Not really activity, but kids also need those easy times too.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
When I was a kid, we did not have video games in the home. We did not have 1,000 channels to surf through on the television. There was no virtual reality, there was just reality. We rode our bikes, we played tag, manhunt, hide and seek etc. As a parent now, I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle to keep my 5 year old active. The opportunities to be inactive are more prevalent then when I was a kid. He loves the iPad, the tv etc. He watches and plays tv, iPad and games on the educational side so I am a little more reluctant to stop him but still it's the same thing, I have to make sure he gets outside, gets to the park etc.
The food, IMO, has not really changed all that much. What the media focus on has changed. When I was a kid it was fat, as I have grown older it's carbs and most recently sugar (which is carbs). What has absolutely changed is activity. Kids are just not as active anymore...
My 15 year old boy is quite adapt with computers and programming now. However he wasn't allowed really any computer time when he was young. Even now he only gets a couple hours a day, mostly because it is needed for his homework. I don't think it hurt him at all. Kids learn really well with human interaction.
We used to read to our kids a lot. I would read English books and my wife mostly read Japanese books to the kids. When my son was 4 I was borned to tears by most of the children's book. I grabbed a biography of Benjamin Franklin and started reading that. He really started complaining but I got him to agree to just listen to the first chapter. When we finished that chapter he begged me to keep reading. It took a week or two but we finished the book and after that we actually read a lot of interesting books together. It was a fun period.
Not really activity, but kids also need those easy times too.
Absolutely. It is sorely missing today. And as a parent of a 5 year old I am quite aware that, IMO, it is harder to do it today. There are so many more distractions to navigate through. When I was a kid, my Mother stayed home to take care of us and the house while my Father went out to make a living. Today, my wife and I both have to go out and work. Everything feels so rushed all the time and now more then ever, it's so important to MAKE the time to do those things...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
For kids, I think this is the main part of it, although probably less time moving, more time sitting around playing computer games also equates to more time to sit and eat/drink soda (while playing).
I live in a health-conscious neighborhood, and don't see many overweight kids. I do see lots of parents doing active things with their kids, and soccer and softball/baseball games and such at the local parks and school with parents watching and I know my friends with kids are always taking them to some sporting event or dance class or the like -- I think kids seem less likely to just run around outside like I did growing up (that could be different in the 'burbs, I live in a big city), but parents in my subculture/neighborhood seem to be focused on providing for organized opportunities for active play. But that seems to require either more work or parents who are also into those things in a way that wasn't so true when I was a kid. In part because if we weren't active, there was a lot less to do. (I used to read a lot, so was sedentary that way, and I suppose kids could have watched lots of TV, but my friends did not, and it was common for TV hours to be limited.)
Re soda, we didn't drink a lot as kids -- some, sure, more as a teen than as a small child when it was basically just at restaurants (we did have kool-aid in the summer, though, typically after running around all day). Soda just didn't seem as available to kids -- we didn't have it in the house and wouldn't have walked to the store to buy treats on our own just as a function of where we lived. But mostly it just didn't seem normal to drink huge amounts. I think part of this is what seems culturally normal or expected has changed, both in terms of activity (being completely sedentary would have seemed really weird) and in terms of food choice and amount.
That is a valid point. We didn't have (still don't) a TV when our children were young. The kids rarely missed it and filled their lives with all kinds of activities. Probably the only thing I would have changed is pushing them to eat fruit more instead of having juice. Still my children don't have any weight, energy or health issues. Most kids wouldn't either if it weren't for too much TV/Computer/Phone time. Kids are just like adults and need to be active to be healthy.
When I was a kid, we did not have video games in the home. We did not have 1,000 channels to surf through on the television. There was no virtual reality, there was just reality. We rode our bikes, we played tag, manhunt, hide and seek etc. As a parent now, I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle to keep my 5 year old active. The opportunities to be inactive are more prevalent then when I was a kid. He loves the iPad, the tv etc. He watches and plays tv, iPad and games on the educational side so I am a little more reluctant to stop him but still it's the same thing, I have to make sure he gets outside, gets to the park etc.
The food, IMO, has not really changed all that much. What the media focus on has changed. When I was a kid it was fat, as I have grown older it's carbs and most recently sugar (which is carbs). What has absolutely changed is activity. Kids are just not as active anymore...
My 15 year old boy is quite adapt with computers and programming now. However he wasn't allowed really any computer time when he was young. Even now he only gets a couple hours a day, mostly because it is needed for his homework. I don't think it hurt him at all. Kids learn really well with human interaction.
We used to read to our kids a lot. I would read English books and my wife mostly read Japanese books to the kids. When my son was 4 I was bored to tears by most of the children's book. I grabbed a biography of Benjamin Franklin and started reading that. He really started complaining but I got him to agree to just listen to the first chapter. When we finished that chapter he begged me to keep reading. It took a week or two but we finished the book and after that we actually read a lot of interesting books together. It was a fun period.
Not really activity, but kids also need those easy times too.
You couldn't have picked a better subject. Franklin biographies are rarely boring. The man's wit is often carried over into works about him by others.0 -
Anything in moderation.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
Yes Jason, it was never an issue. It became an issue as I got older, my metabolism slowed due to less activity. With a heavier workload at school there was less free time to play. Only as I got older did I have to "watch" what I ate. My parents made sure, regardless, that my diet was well balanced which I in turn now do for my son. He gets his treats, drinks his juice, eats his deadly waffles. But, he is a kid and plays like a kid. He runs, jumps, hides, wrestles etc.
I assure you, I am perfectly healthy...
So please, STOP overanalyzing this stuff, because it goes nowhere.
My kids eat pancakes, waffles, sodas, ice cream, donuts and cookies regularly. Probably two treats a day, sometimes more on the weekends when we are active. We allow this on top of a solid diet, and both our kids are on the low end of the weight scale with good muscle development for their ages. I grew up in a similar fashion though not as active as my kids. I didn't gain weight until my late twenties when I went very sedentary. If I continue this back in time and look at the rich and often sugary food that my grandparents (died late 80s) and great grandparents (died 80s to 90s) ate then I also have a hard time not seeing obesity as 99% activity level and lack of portion control, rather than what specifically is being eaten.
The study posted above didn't restrict calories when looking at the relationship between adipose tissue and sugar, so it's interesting, but I'm not seeing it as anything more than that. Sugary drinks will tend to increase overall calorie consumption absent a specific limitation on calories. Maybe someone with a heavy statistical background can tell me why I'm wrong. I'm nearly 20 years out of school and only toyed with regression analysis then.1 -
But does that mean it's ok for someone to do so, just because it's possible?ForecasterJason wrote: »
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
Have you not heard of evolution or genetic mutation?
People can eat a lot of sugar and not develop any health problems. Hard to believe, but it happens.
So somehow in one generation a whole lot of mutations happened. I'm not talking about 100 years ago. Like I said, when my parents, (not even going back to my grandparents) grew up, rates of a lot of health issues that kids and young adults have today were a lot lower.
0 -
I may not have been clear, but I was more so referring to people who grew up in the 1960s-1980s.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, but I'm pretty sure that my parents and their friends would say that kids and young adults in general didn't need to go to the doctor for these kind of conditions, regardless of whether there was a diagnosis or not. In other words, people were healthier.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
A lot of diseases had no diagnosis, they were just unnamed.
I'm an amateur historian, who first did a fair amount of work on my family tree. Along with filling out births, marriages, and deaths, I came across causes of death for relatives long gone. People died from all sorts of diseases that are scarcely a threat today. Infant mortality was much higher. My ancestors at times named a new infant after the recently departed child, in the hopes of carrying the family name to adulthood. I'd say one in four births the child did not make it to adulthood. Here's a few causes for you to chew over; complications from diabetes, "consumption", pneumonia, bipolar disorder, polio, sepsis from a cut thumb (no antibiotics), smallpox, Diptheria, and the Spanish Influenza.
By the way, "consumption" was a catch-all diagnosis where the person weakened and died from no known cause. Maybe cancer. We didn't have the advanced diagnostic tools we have today.
0 -
I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.1 -
We agree that a kid who is more active can generally eat more sugar than one who is not. But are you trying to say that there's no issue with an active kid downing a lot of sugar just because he/she is burning it off? Because if one is eating a well balanced diet, sugar consumption shouldn't really be that high as it is (unless we're talking about someone with an extremely high activity level).ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
We ate and drank MORE sugar when I was a kid. At that time it was the low fat craze. So this idea that it all has to come down to diet is crazy. Yes diet is important but the big elephant in the room is obvious, kids are just not as active anymore. This is not hard to grasp...
0 -
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
We agree that a kid who is more active can generally eat more sugar than one who is not. But are you trying to say that there's no issue with an active kid downing a lot of sugar just because he/she is burning it off? Because if one is eating a well balanced diet, sugar consumption shouldn't really be that high as it is (unless we're talking about someone with an extremely high activity level).ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
We ate and drank MORE sugar when I was a kid. At that time it was the low fat craze. So this idea that it all has to come down to diet is crazy. Yes diet is important but the big elephant in the room is obvious, kids are just not as active anymore. This is not hard to grasp...
Once again, you are speaking in generalities and making assumptions about such a broad sample set that it is impossible to draw accurate conclusions. What is "a lot" of sugar? Sugar consumption shouldn't be as high as what? What is the sugar consumption among children? What children? What ages? What country? What is their activity level? What else are they eating? You and others keep saying that kids are obese because of sugar, that sweetened beverages are causing this, and if they aren't obese, then they probably have hidden health issues that they are unaware of even though many people in this thread have provided their own n=1 scenarios about themselves and their children that just don't support this.
You are speaking in hypotheticals about children you don't know, families you don't know, activity levels you can't quantify, and diets you can't dissect completely. There are MILLIONS of children in the world with about as many different diets and activity levels, how can you possibly draw viable conclusions from a sample set this large?
And also, just a word of advice, as I'm not sure if you are a parent or not, but generally people in particular bristle when those who don't have children are offering advice or commentary to those who do about any of the three most contentious topics in parenting: diet, sleep habits, and discipline...5 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
Improved diagnostic methods and abilities, and better access to treatment facilities could have a lot to do with that as well. Even in the 80s, when I was a kid in a rather rural area, if you hadn't severed a limb, and/or weren't literally dying, you weren't going to a doctor.6 -
This is turning into a tinfoil hat type discussion.7
-
This is not a hot topic, it is a booooring topic!
2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So am I correct in that, assuming one is active and at a healthy weight and bodyfat percentage, the only reason why there are more and more people getting certain conditions at a young age is because of random genetic mutations. Still doesn't make sense to me…I grew up in the 70's in NY. We ate almost exclusively canned, boxed, and frozen food. Fish sticks, tater tots, boxed flavored rice, canned veggies, frozen waffles, Wonder bread, Hostess cupcakes, Chips Ahoy cookies, hot dogs, pasta, ice cream, OJ from concentrate, ice tea mix. We had soda and chips or popcorn once or twice a week. So I'm guessing a lot of sugar and salt, not much protein, and really the only fresh food we ate was meat and a little fruit. Our diet was pretty typical of the middle class families we knew at least.
However, we spent most of our time running around outside. I was a string bean. Always on the skinny side, until I got to my mid-twenties and got an office job. Having said that, I've never been "overweight" just the high side of healthy. Lost weight in my twenties and thirties by increasing exercise. Lost weight this time by counting calories. I certainly eat a better diet now, but still probably 50% processed/ 50% whole. I eat ice cream, chocolate, cookies, pasta, whenever I want, but in portion sizes that fit my calorie goal. Getting my activity level up while controlling my calories in was the key to getting to my current weight.
I have always had low blood pressure, normal blood sugar, rarely catch colds and never the flu, haven't taken a prescription medication since I had my last earache when I was a kid. So my n=1 says I was and am fine eating a moderate amount of sugar. My minor problems were caused by not balancing my calories in with my activity level.
And it's silly to say kids used to be healthier. In the 70's bronchitis and ear infections went around practically every month. There were plenty of "sickly" kids in my school who weren't diagnosed with anything but clearly weren't healthy. There were several children in my elementary and high school classes that we lost to cancer. And as @jgnatca said, if you go back to earlier in the century children suffered from all kinds of health problems we don't even think about anymore.
Nothing I've read in this never-ending thread has convinced me the problem is anything other than obesity. If obese kids (and adults) ate less of everything and moved a lot more, they would lose weight and improve their health markers.
What conditions are children at a healthy weight getting more often?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 958 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions