Adam Ruins Everything: Weight Loss
Options
PaulaWallaDingDong
Posts: 4,641 Member
So far, I'm disappointed. Sigh...
2
Replies
-
:huh:
Is this a pop culture reference? I'm terribad at that stuff, but I like to be the first one to post, so...6 -
Is that a new one?0
-
Yes it's new. I'm missing a lot of it because I'm on the job, but they lost me at someone using a razor blade to cut lines of sugar. They went on to slam Biggest Loser a bit (missed the specifics, though), but I'm hurting.
0 -
Isn't that how you make icing sugar from your regular table sugar? Cutting with a razorblade. On a shiny surface, of course.5
-
Adam Ruins Everything basically finds the most negative research about any topic, (or misrepresents research/data in order to make it look more negative) in order to "ruin" everything. He brings up some good points in some of his videos, but sometimes he stretches a little much. I've noticed his videos don't take the totality of the subject at hand, but rather show a biased, negative view. It's his prerogative, since he is trying to ruin everything, but take it with a grain of salt.8
-
cmriverside wrote: »:huh:
Is this a pop culture reference? I'm terribad at that stuff, but I like to be the first one to post, so...
It's a show where Adam messes up everyone's good time by correcting popular myths and whatnot.
And the "doing lines of sugar" wasn't a hyberbole about the evils of sugar being a joke. It was in support of the notion that it's like cocaine.2 -
Yep, I give up. Not really.1
-
So disappointing. Shot down some myths by supporting other myths. Shot down low fat, superiority of specific diets, and the Biggest Loser.
But did so by pushing Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health. <facepalm>
I honestly don't think I can watch this show anymore 11 -
So disappointing. Shot down some myths by supporting other myths. Shot down low fat, superiority of specific diets, and the Biggest Loser.
But did so by pushing Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health. <facepalm>
I honestly don't think I can watch this show anymore
On the plus side, he's staying true to his title. He ruined his show.18 -
Just watched it... disappointed is just putting it lightly.
So much denial and HAES- inspired misinformation.
I'm 256 lbs, down from 304 lbs, in 125 days.
Not having laboratory grade accuracy with calories didn't stop the CICO strategy from being efficient.
Too bad this makes me question his other theories. Not going to enjoy the show as much ever again.
4 -
Funny, I was JUST watching ARE: Low-Fat Foods Are Making You Fatter (part of that episode you mentioned). I haven't eyerolled that hard in ages. It had everything: from the sugar industry, to adding piles of sugar to low fat foods, to low fat recommendations causing obesity... It was like all MFP woo threads distilled into one video. I'm glad I haven't watched the whole thing, I would have contracted heart disease (which is caused by sugar and was nearly non-existent before low fat recommendations by the way).6
-
So disappointing. Shot down some myths by supporting other myths. Shot down low fat, superiority of specific diets, and the Biggest Loser.
But did so by pushing Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health. <facepalm>
I honestly don't think I can watch this show anymore
I had a similar response to Consumer Reports years ago. They reviewed some products that I actually knew quite a bit about--and their misrepresentations were so glaring that I could never trust anything they wrote about anything else.
5 -
I was really curious what kind of denial I would find in this topic. Kinda funny how people are convincing themselves that the topics of this show are fake, despite the sources provided throughout the show, and the medical professionals who appear throughout.
I personally found it quite interesting, and based on my own research, quite accurate.23 -
TheViperMan wrote: »I was really curious what kind of denial I would find in this topic. Kinda funny how people are convincing themselves that the topics of this show are fake, despite the sources provided throughout the show, and the medical professionals who appear throughout.
I personally found it quite interesting, and based on my own research, quite accurate.
Since I'm not gonna give myself that show, let's take what the others wrote on what was in it:
"Big Sugar is diabolically making us fat. Genetics means many of us are destined to be fat. Closed with the idea that it's fine being overweight. Actually said weight is not directly related to health."
Do you think any of that is accurate?6 -
Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?0
-
^^ It *could* be, if taken in the right light.
Big Sugar IS a thing, utilizing tactics similar to Big Tobacco for marketing, branding, and product composition;
Genetics CAN make it more difficult to lose weight or easier to gain, especially if you have specific genetic disorders, but are not a "destiny";
Some people are fine being "overweight" because BMI is meant for a collective rather than the individual, and some people are "overweight" due to higher muscle mass;
Weight is not directly related to health in that being overweight is a symptom of your habits, lifestyle, nutrition, and genetics. It's the things that come with being overweight (higher cholesterol, poor blood circulation, insulin resistance, etc.) that have the DIRECT impact on your health. Causation vs. correlation. This is up to a point, of course. If you're overweight enough that you can't get out of bed... well, that's a whole 'nother beast.
BUT this is not how most people who watch that channel are going to interpret the things that he's saying.
Also: have not watched the episode.12 -
^^ It *could* be, if taken in the right light.
Big Sugar IS a thing, utilizing tactics similar to Big Tobacco for marketing, branding, and product composition;
Genetics CAN make it more difficult to lose weight or easier to gain, especially if you have specific genetic disorders, but are not a "destiny";
Some people are fine being "overweight" because BMI is meant for a collective rather than the individual, and some people are "overweight" due to higher muscle mass;
Weight is not directly related to health in that being overweight is a symptom of your habits, lifestyle, nutrition, and genetics. It's the things that come with being overweight (higher cholesterol, poor blood circulation, insulin resistance, etc.) that have the DIRECT impact on your health. Causation vs. correlation. This is up to a point, of course. If you're overweight enough that you can't get out of bed... well, that's a whole 'nother beast.
BUT this is not how most people who watch that channel are going to interpret the things that he's saying.
Also: have not watched the episode.
False. Big corn might be a thing, big sugar isn't.
Very few... and as one of them, I recognize that it works pretty well for most people.
The extra pounding on your knees, hips and ankles, unless you're working on building the necessary strength skills and supporting muscles will take a toll4 -
Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?
Seems like:
"it's not my fault I'm fat, Big Sugar did it"
or
"it's not my fault I'm fat, I'm genetically programmed"
or
"no reason not to be fat anyway, the health claims are made up"
are more denial than the opposite. Certainly excuses/justifications.
(I didn't see the show and had never heard of it, going by the description above.)6 -
^^ It *could* be, if taken in the right light.
Big Sugar IS a thing, utilizing tactics similar to Big Tobacco for marketing, branding, and product composition
Most of the sugar in ultra processed/hyper marketed foods is probably HFCS (i.e., Big Corn), not "Big Sugar."
The reason HFCS is added in large amounts to some products is that it's cheap and has a consistency (liquid) that makes it easy to do so, apparently. And, most significantly, it's a cheap way to make food taste good to the average consumer. People don't consume sweet foods because they are convinced it's "cool" to do so or healthy for them (as with tobacco at various times), but because they enjoy them. Most of the consumption is in products that are called "junk food" and known to be bad for us in excess (sweet dessert foods or soda).
Before the rise of cheap mass marketed sweets, people still loved and craved sweet foods -- apple pie, Sacher torte, Christmas pudding, all sorts of examples going back forever. The difference is they are cheap and easily available now. If one is not a snob (I'm a bit of a snob, admittedly), you can go to the store and buy for little the same thing you used to have to devote time to making (or paying much more for at a bakery, if you lived somewhere that was an option).
Anyway, main point is that we don't eat foods that are bad for us because of Big Sugar. Big Snack Food (sugary and not) saw an opportunity and seized it. Many humans will easily overeat in a situation where they are surrounded by foods they perceive as tasty and little or no cultural restrictions (eating times or cultural norms) that prevent it.4 -
I loved the episode, big thumbs up.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions