Adam Ruins Everything: Weight Loss
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »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."
Just quoting you to slyly quote myself
While the Big Sugar thing annoyed me, because it's the *kitten* health fad of the moment, the bolded is what sealed the deal for me. I have heard so many testimonials on these boards of people who changed absolutely nothing but quantity of food, lost weight, and saw all their health markers drastically improve. I cannot imagine a doctor who would say it's no big deal to be overweight. I know the show probably caters to Millenials, but the whole - you're a special snowflake who could just be destined to be 50 lbs overweight and maybe it's not even bad for your health, so carry on being the amazing miracle unicorn you are - was too much.
You can't say Big Evil Sugar is Big Evil Sugar because they single-handedly caused the obesity crisis, and in the same show say being overweight isn't directly related to health.
10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »^^ 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
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.
There once was a heated argument between Fat vs. Sugar in the diet and which was more detrimental. Fat lost and Sugar won (mostly by appealing to consumers) - manufacturers had to add sugar to help make up for he lack of flavor due to low fat. We now know that certain fats, like saturated fats, aren't particularly good for you but there are healthy fats as well. We also know that a diet high in sugar is strongly linked to insulin resistance and type II diabetes. So at one point in time you probably could argue for the presence of Big Sugar, but whether it truly exists today...we probably won't find out for years to come.
Conspiracy theories aside I thought it was a pretty good episode. Unfortunately I think they oversimplified their explanations a bit which is leading to some debate. For instance, aeloine's point about obesity vs health and correlation and causation is absolutely correct. The writers could have explained that better. Obesity in and of itself is not the source of health problems. That's like saying the increase in murder rates during the summer drives the sale of ice cream higher in the summer. Lifestyle and diet cause both obesity and other health problems. You can lose fat by eating a bag of Twix every day, but you sure won't help reverse any insulin resistance by doing that.
3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Isn't that how you make icing sugar from your regular table sugar? Cutting with a razorblade. On a shiny surface, of course.
Nah, that's inefficient. Throw sugar in coffee grinder.
1 -
^^ 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.
Yes genetics plays a role, but the VAST majority of people who are overweight are overweight because they eat too much and move too little. As to the bolded, you are playing with semantics. Being overweight is strongly at least correlated with diabetes risk, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer-risk, joint and mobility issues. While it may not directly cause them, it is a red flag with neon lights telling you that your body needs you to eat less and move more. To suggest that people shouldn't worry about being overweight, they are just fine the way they are, when such a large percentage of the population are obese and living the kind of lifestyle that you would expect to get them there, is disingenuous.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the % of the people out there who are considered overweight by BMI but are really just muscular athletic types whose sick gym bodies are throwing off the numbers is pretty small.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »extra pounding on your knees, hips and ankles, unless you're working on building the necessary strength skills and supporting muscles will take a toll
Which is why I mentioned being very large. If you're large enough to be getting a beating out of your own body, that's a whole 'nother level of issues.0 -
Just to add, because I really don't want to do the work I have in front of me, you have to put this into the context of the show. It's a half hour, with a lot of commercials.
After saying - low fat doesn't work, nutrition labels lie so calorie counting doesn't work, exercise doesn't work, weight loss shows are a lie, they finished with - being overweight does not directly affect health. Now while we might be able to argue correlation and causation and degrees of truthfulness, and all the factors that go into becoming obese and developing health issues, the show did not. They do throw up graphics with web addresses to back up what they are saying, but I doubt very many viewers jot them down.
So basically they said that everything you can think of doing to lose weight is a lie, and weight doesn't affect your health, so just enjoy your life and don't worry about it, because everyone gets fat. Have a nice day.
And yes it might have triggered me
9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »^^ 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
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.
There once was a heated argument between Fat vs. Sugar in the diet and which was more detrimental. Fat lost and Sugar won (mostly by appealing to consumers) - manufacturers had to add sugar to help make up for he lack of flavor due to low fat.
I know what you are talking about, but that's terribly distorted.
What I would say is true:
People used to think that fat in general was more detrimental than it is (although the kinds of added fats common in processed foods probably were detrimental and still are, although less so, as back then they were more likely to be transfats).
Marketers picked up on the low fat trend and started promoting foods that were always low or no fat as if they were special and extra healthy (low fat on dried pasta or oats, for example, how absurd).
SOME foods, ones that in many cases NO ONE reasonably thought were actually super healthy (like Snackwells) got seen as guilt-free ways to indulge (but still indulge) because they were low fat. NO ONE was actually recommending that people eat Snackwells when cutting back on fat, though -- the recommendations were for whole foods, higher fiber grains, vegetables and fruits, lean meats, low fat dairy -- the usual. NONE of these foods should have added fat.
Indeed, the lie that low fat=more sugar drives me crazy, because essentially the only low fat foods I ever eat are lean ground beef and low fat dairy products, and none of those have added sugar. (Some yogurts have added sugar, but that has nothing to do with them being low fat or not.)
In any case, despite the recommendations that people eat less fat and the popularity of stupid stuff like Snackwells and flavored rice cakes and the like as "healthy" snacks, the truth is -- and this goes against the sugar did it, it's all carbs nonsense -- the US population did not actually decrease the amount of fat consumed. Period. Full stop. We did not. Instead, we kept fat about the same and increased carbs some and ate more calories. To blame this on a demonization of fat (which was stupid) and claim that the correct response is to demonize carbs or sugar (just as stupid, IMO), would be a mistake.
So I'm going to point again to my explanation of what happened from before:
"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."7 -
Here's a sample from the show. Enjoy the "heart disease was rare before sugar brought it about" and "sugar is more addictive than cocaine". This ruined the show for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rWjb7t8cfo 7 -
Read this as "admins ruin everything" and was thinking this was a very edgy thread lol6
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Here's a sample from the show. Enjoy the "heart disease was rare before sugar brought it about" and "sugar is more addictive than cocaine". This ruined the show for me.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rWjb7t8cfo
when you can't afford cocaine, sugar is the next best thing!3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »extra pounding on your knees, hips and ankles, unless you're working on building the necessary strength skills and supporting muscles will take a toll
Which is why I mentioned being very large. If you're large enough to be getting a beating out of your own body, that's a whole 'nother level of issues.
30 extra pounds is enough to beat up your body... you don't have to be very large.1 -
My husband was laughing at me, seeing how much the show was pissing me off.
My 13-year-old was watching with me. He doesn't need to hear that it's basically impossible to lose weight. Ugh. He's watched his mom lose almost 30 pounds, it's obviously not impossible.1 -
@folgers86We also know that a diet high in sugar is strongly linked to insulin resistance and type II diabetes.
No, ah, no no no. Former T2 diabetic here, now in remission. First, don't mix up correlation with causation. I was insulin resistant and then T2 for over a decade, and attended all the diabetic classes. I've never been a sweets person and cut it all out when I was diagnosed. Nevertheless, I got sugar spikes....from starchy carbs like rice.
My diabetes went in to remission when I lost significant weight and as a known side effect from bariatric surgery. I now can eat sugary treats without the insulin resistant/diabetic response.6 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Isn't that how you make icing sugar from your regular table sugar? Cutting with a razorblade. On a shiny surface, of course.
Nah, that's inefficient. Throw sugar in coffee grinder.
But that would reduce my calorie burn significantly.
0 -
It's actually a good episode for the most part. Bit of an over-focus on sugar and some fatalism, but some good here too:
The good:- Destroys the idea that "low-fat" products are good for anything and that fat is "bad."
- Exposes how paid researchers and "scientists" can and have used bogus studies to support one lobby or industry or another.
- Exposes that addiction (psychological or otherwise) to sweets is a real thing, many many Americans consume way too much of it, and added sugar and HFCS are in way too many products making it hard to lose weight if you're not paying attention (but misses the point that ultimately it's being over TDEE that causing weight gain, not the sugar itself).
- Teaches that calorie counting is an imprecise science that involves trial and error and debunks the idea that all humans have the same TDEE, and explains how calories are measured. Also that calorie counts on labels aren't awesome.
- Teaches that fitness trackers and anything that counts "calories burned" is going to be imprecise (and probably overshoot results). This is true.
- Teaches that one of the best things you can do to see results is eat healthy, cut portions, and weight yourself regularly. This is true.
- Exposes the nastiness behind shows like "Biggest Loser." <-- these awful POS shows shouldn't exist, and the programs they put people on are cruel and unsustainable.
The bad.- By totally poo-pooing calorie/macro counting, the show ignores that this -- while imprecise -- is a trial and error process that can absolutely provide a consistent and helpful guide, helps a LOT of people lose weight, and that tracking and managing intake can create accountability and progress.
- Suggests that being "fat" could be something genetic or totally out of your control, and that massive changes "might not even be possible." This is bogus and totally uninspiring.
- Doesn't provide a very good way forward for people serious about losing weight. Would have preferred a little more helpful science... seems to encourage some apathy over action.
I'd say overall I give it a solid "B-" when compared to all the junk science out there.
1 -
Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?
Sure! First of all, our bodies are built to consume fat - it is indeed what allowed our species to survive evolution. Early humans enjoyed chewing on sugar cane, but survived on animal proteins and fats. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/history-sugar-food-nobody-needs-everyone-craves-004406)
What I was surprised I DIDN'T see complaints on was the section regarding calories, and how basically every calorie "target" calculator/theory out there is bogus, because we have no idea exactly how many calories we burn. Nor do most companies know (or bother to find out) exactly how many calories their products contain, and since the FDA allows a 20% swing in accuracy (I was surprised to learn that) a lot of the numbers we work with here on this very site are skewed - substantially. (https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm)
He didn't even get around to mentioning that the FDA has no system for auditing food labels, and that compliance with the law is expected to be monitored by the manufacturers... (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/08/21/when-nutrition-labels-lie)
Toss in the fact that those fancy fitbits many of you use have shown to be 40% inaccurate (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27248/20150118/fitness-trackers-up-to-40-inaccurate-fitbit-jawbone-nike-others-tested-in-new-study-which-performed-best.htm) and Fitbit themselves explained that the device was never meant to be for scientific or medical use, and suddenly this whole "counting calories" thing is nearly impossible.
So, those folks who've stated that this show was wrong, that it misrepresented facts, that it "ruined" the series in general, are denying themselves the reality of how complicated our physiology is and how difficult it can be to produce a method that works for everyone. They want to keep justifying what they're doing and what they're preaching to each other because change is hard.
Did the show cover everything it could, of course not. Did it leave things out, absolutely. It's a half-hour, low-budget show that's only in it's second season. I like this season so far - he's trying to fit in more interviews with his sources (often professors/authors/doctors in their fields) to go into a bit more detail, but again, it's a short show with commercials - only so much you can cover in roughly 22 minutes of air-time.7 -
TheViperMan wrote: »Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?
Sure! First of all, our bodies are built to consume fat - it is indeed what allowed our species to survive evolution. Early humans enjoyed chewing on sugar cane, but survived on animal proteins and fats. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/history-sugar-food-nobody-needs-everyone-craves-004406)
What I was surprised I DIDN'T see complaints on was the section regarding calories, and how basically every calorie "target" calculator/theory out there is bogus, because we have no idea exactly how many calories we burn. Nor do most companies know (or bother to find out) exactly how many calories their products contain, and since the FDA allows a 20% swing in accuracy (I was surprised to learn that) a lot of the numbers we work with here on this very site are skewed - substantially. (https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm)
He didn't even get around to mentioning that the FDA has no system for auditing food labels, and that compliance with the law is expected to be monitored by the manufacturers... (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/08/21/when-nutrition-labels-lie)
Toss in the fact that those fancy fitbits many of you use have shown to be 40% inaccurate (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27248/20150118/fitness-trackers-up-to-40-inaccurate-fitbit-jawbone-nike-others-tested-in-new-study-which-performed-best.htm) and Fitbit themselves explained that the device was never meant to be for scientific or medical use, and suddenly this whole "counting calories" thing is nearly impossible.
So, those folks who've stated that this show was wrong, that it misrepresented facts, that it "ruined" the series in general, are denying themselves the reality of how complicated our physiology is and how difficult it can be to produce a method that works for everyone. They want to keep justifying what they're doing and what they're preaching to each other because change is hard.
Did the show cover everything it could, of course not. Did it leave things out, absolutely. It's a half-hour, low-budget show that's only in it's second season. I like this season so far - he's trying to fit in more interviews with his sources (often professors/authors/doctors in their fields) to go into a bit more detail, but again, it's a short show with commercials - only so much you can cover in roughly 22 minutes of air-time.
Humans developed that survival mechanism, well, for survival. It's slower and less efficient. The default the body switches to immediately is running on glucose as soon as it's available and for as long as it's available because it's quick and efficient. Humans lived and continue to live in diverse areas with diverse biomes and food availability. I can't believe how anyone would fall for generalizing the human diet to one particular pattern. We eat what's available, and what's available can span a wide range of macro percentages.
Calories can be inaccurate in theory, and the same goes for activity trackers, but both can be practically accurate after you've pinpointed your numbers through simple logging. The way it was portrayed is completely misleading. No one ever said every person on the planet needs 2300 calories, and even if your point is that calculators are not accurate for individuals, it's easy to find your individual practical number. This is a moot point and a non-argument. The show (which I begrudgingly had to watch in its entirety to reply to this) made it look like if you don't know the exact numbers then it's no good and we're better off just giving up and accepting our weight.4 -
TheViperMan wrote: »Denial? Care to go more in depth @TheViperMan?
Sure! First of all, our bodies are built to consume fat - it is indeed what allowed our species to survive evolution. Early humans enjoyed chewing on sugar cane, but survived on animal proteins and fats. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/history-sugar-food-nobody-needs-everyone-craves-004406)
What I was surprised I DIDN'T see complaints on was the section regarding calories, and how basically every calorie "target" calculator/theory out there is bogus, because we have no idea exactly how many calories we burn. Nor do most companies know (or bother to find out) exactly how many calories their products contain, and since the FDA allows a 20% swing in accuracy (I was surprised to learn that) a lot of the numbers we work with here on this very site are skewed - substantially. (https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm)
He didn't even get around to mentioning that the FDA has no system for auditing food labels, and that compliance with the law is expected to be monitored by the manufacturers... (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/08/21/when-nutrition-labels-lie)
Toss in the fact that those fancy fitbits many of you use have shown to be 40% inaccurate (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27248/20150118/fitness-trackers-up-to-40-inaccurate-fitbit-jawbone-nike-others-tested-in-new-study-which-performed-best.htm) and Fitbit themselves explained that the device was never meant to be for scientific or medical use, and suddenly this whole "counting calories" thing is nearly impossible.
So, those folks who've stated that this show was wrong, that it misrepresented facts, that it "ruined" the series in general, are denying themselves the reality of how complicated our physiology is and how difficult it can be to produce a method that works for everyone. They want to keep justifying what they're doing and what they're preaching to each other because change is hard.
Did the show cover everything it could, of course not. Did it leave things out, absolutely. It's a half-hour, low-budget show that's only in it's second season. I like this season so far - he's trying to fit in more interviews with his sources (often professors/authors/doctors in their fields) to go into a bit more detail, but again, it's a short show with commercials - only so much you can cover in roughly 22 minutes of air-time.
I was able to start with less than perfect data from nutrition labeling and my fitbit, adjust based on my results, and come up with what must be an accurate representation of my calorie needs, as my weight does what I expect it to do, and I lost the 15 lbs I'd been struggling with. It wasn't really very difficult to figure out. But I suppose I just should have given up sugar and resigned myself to probably gaining a bit of weight as I got older instead.
It's not that the information he presented was incorrect. It's that it was one-sided and the conclusions he drew were fatalistic. The last thing people need to be told by a myth-busting show is that there is no good data ready made for you to be spoon-fed anyway, so just try to eat healthier and stop worrying about your weight.3 -
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
It was same when John Oliver did his episode on sugar. Lots of the same rhetoric as this show and episode.0 -
Every 20 years a macro is demonized... still waiting on the provocative, desperately needed Put Down the Fork era.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions