Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Diet Soda Court Ruling

2

Replies

  • maureenkhildemaureenkhilde Posts: 835Member Member Posts: 835Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?
    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.
  • hesn92hesn92 Posts: 5,801Member Member Posts: 5,801Member Member
  • ccrdragonccrdragon Posts: 2,374Member Member Posts: 2,374Member Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Not really a debate, but knowing how divisive opinions on diet soda can be, dropping this here:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expecting-weight-loss-drinking-diet-soda-unreasonable-federal/story?id=68031037
    Having "diet" on soft drinks doesn't mean you will lose weight, a court ruled.

    It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.

    Did you see that this was actually her second try at this? She had previously sued Coca-Cola for the same reason (and got the same result).
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,528Member Member Posts: 4,528Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?

    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.

    Yeah, I think a really large number of people fall in that category. It's not unique to keto, a lot of people just don't want to believe calories are what matter no matter what type of diet they are doing. ("Clean eaters" often are in this category, and McDougall seems to be a WFPB person in that category, I think, although I'd have to read more of him to be certain.

    Re keto, even those who should know better, like Taubes and some others in the keto-activist camp, still are pushing the theory that carbs and not calories are what's relevant for weight.

    I think your approach is perfectly sensible and, IME, it is also the mainstream one from low carbers and keto-ers on MFP, but on some other sites that is not true. (When I was experimenting with keto I was exploring commentary from keto-fans on the net, and found a lot of people insisting calories did not matter.)

    It's not McDougall-specific, but I have encountered WFPB people who insist that it's impossible to be an unhealthy weight if you do WFPB "right." Sometimes this is a belief that a WFPB diet will automatically make you a successful intuitive eater (that is, you will automatically consume the right number of calories to support your ideal body weight), but I've also met some people who are seeming to argue that your body cannot store excess calories unless you're eating incorrectly . . . which is pretty much a denial that calories matter.

    McDougall is, in my readings, pretty cagey about what he's actually claiming for his program. He writes about how he encourages "unrestricted eating" and that his program participants never have a "moment of hunger," but will lose 3.5 pounds a week while eating "to the full satisfaction of their natural and healthy appetite." He writes that this is because the foods allowed on his plan satisfy the "hunger drive." He also claims that exercise encourages your brain to ask your body for less food (while one is carrying extra weight), which further increases the effectiveness of his program. So I would classify him as someone who argues that calories do matter, but that we can "hack" the system so we can ignore them if we eliminate the right foods (which I don't think is an effective approach for the average person seeking a sustainable approach to weight management, but of course some individuals do have successful with methods like this).

    What I was thinking of is something of his I read where he seems to argue that because it's so preferred for the body to store fat as fat that if you eat low-enough fat and high starch that it really won't matter how much you eat. It seemed like the reverse of the Taubes et al. argument when I read it. (But I am not a McDougall expert.)
    edited January 3
  • pinuplovepinuplove Posts: 12,930Member Member Posts: 12,930Member Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Not really a debate, but knowing how divisive opinions on diet soda can be, dropping this here:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expecting-weight-loss-drinking-diet-soda-unreasonable-federal/story?id=68031037
    Having "diet" on soft drinks doesn't mean you will lose weight, a court ruled.

    It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.

    Did you see that this was actually her second try at this? She had previously sued Coca-Cola for the same reason (and got the same result).

    I saw the part about the previous lawsuit but failed to internalize that it was brought by the same person *caught skimming* Definitely feels like a money grab.

    She needs a new hobby.
    edited January 3
  • geraldaltmangeraldaltman Posts: 1,737Member, Premium Member Posts: 1,737Member, Premium Member
    I debated opening this thread for days. Now that I did, here is my simplistic take. I drink diet soda, never once have I thought it would cause me to lose weight, certainly not without doing the other neccessary things. I do drink diet soda as part of my effort to eliminate extra sugar from my diet. Simple.
    "Our tax dollars at work".
  • Elise4270Elise4270 Posts: 7,648Member, Premium Member Posts: 7,648Member, Premium Member
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?
    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.

    i would think from what i've seen here and what i hear among friends and work people, that more people fall into this category than don't.
    even people who've lost weight using a special diet, i've found, espouse the diet, not how it worked-calorie deficit.
    and when i tell people i've done without a diet, and just eating a deficit, they've flatly told me it doesn't work like that.
    so now, everyone can go on their IF, Keto, cabbage diet and i'll eat my fries and ice cream

    I heard a woman on the phone yesterday helping someone avoid carbs and suggested all these veggies. I had just hoped the person was trying to manage diabetes and not live on bacon and celery. Although... bacon.
  • deannalfisherdeannalfisher Posts: 5,395Member, Premium Member Posts: 5,395Member, Premium Member
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?
    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.

    i would think from what i've seen here and what i hear among friends and work people, that more people fall into this category than don't.
    even people who've lost weight using a special diet, i've found, espouse the diet, not how it worked-calorie deficit.
    and when i tell people i've done without a diet, and just eating a deficit, they've flatly told me it doesn't work like that.
    so now, everyone can go on their IF, Keto, cabbage diet and i'll eat my fries and ice cream

    I heard a woman on the phone yesterday helping someone avoid carbs and suggested all these veggies. I had just hoped the person was trying to manage diabetes and not live on bacon and celery. Although... bacon.

    i had someone tell me that carrots were better for you than rice
  • whitpaulywhitpauly Posts: 1,290Member Member Posts: 1,290Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?
    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.

    Based on posts I've seen here and chatter I've overheard at work, there are at least some people who think that eating keto -- in and of itself -- will cause weight loss.

    That's the chatter I've heard as well,I think SOME people just think it's a magic bullet and can eat 5,000 calories in bacon a day and still lose weight 😒
  • tuddy315tuddy315 Posts: 6,714Member Member Posts: 6,714Member Member
    So my Jordan's Skinny Syrup is out, too??? :'(
  • Carlos_421Carlos_421 Posts: 5,076Member Member Posts: 5,076Member Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Good grief, it's like suing McDs for having hot coffee.

    Despite it's folk lore status, the McDonald's coffee case was actually legit.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

    I actually read about that a while back. Her injuries were horrifying. I mean there's hot, and then there's HOT. I didn't immediately connect Nutty's comment to that case.

    A lady from my area tried to piggy back on this case.

    She used an automated coffee machine to get hot water for her tea every morning in the cafeteria at her place of employment (if I named the company you'd all know it because they make basically all the name brands of everything).
    One day she failed to properly secure the plastic lid on her cup, spilled the water and scalded herself.
    She sued her employer and the manufacturers of the cup, the lid and the machine.

    Court ruled in favor of all the defendants. She was familiar with the machine, used it daily for a significant time period, the temperature of the water was appropriate for making tea (her intention) and the spill was due to her own negligence to properly seal the lid and not a defect.

    I only know the story because the lawyer who defended the manufacturer of the machine now works for the same company I do.
  • pinuplovepinuplove Posts: 12,930Member Member Posts: 12,930Member Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Good grief, it's like suing McDs for having hot coffee.

    Despite it's folk lore status, the McDonald's coffee case was actually legit.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

    I actually read about that a while back. Her injuries were horrifying. I mean there's hot, and then there's HOT. I didn't immediately connect Nutty's comment to that case.

    A lady from my area tried to piggy back on this case.

    She used an automated coffee machine to get hot water for her tea every morning in the cafeteria at her place of employment (if I named the company you'd all know it because they make basically all the name brands of everything).
    One day she failed to properly secure the plastic lid on her cup, spilled the water and scalded herself.
    She sued her employer and the manufacturers of the cup, the lid and the machine.

    Court ruled in favor of all the defendants. She was familiar with the machine, used it daily for a significant time period, the temperature of the water was appropriate for making tea (her intention) and the spill was due to her own negligence to properly seal the lid and not a defect.

    I only know the story because the lawyer who defended the manufacturer of the machine now works for the same company I do.
    I wonder how many other people did similar things after that case, not knowing or fully appreciating the severity of it? I assume her scalding wasn't anywhere near the measure of that case since the water was at an appropriate temperature.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,600Member Member Posts: 21,600Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?

    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.

    Yeah, I think a really large number of people fall in that category. It's not unique to keto, a lot of people just don't want to believe calories are what matter no matter what type of diet they are doing. ("Clean eaters" often are in this category, and McDougall seems to be a WFPB person in that category, I think, although I'd have to read more of him to be certain.

    Re keto, even those who should know better, like Taubes and some others in the keto-activist camp, still are pushing the theory that carbs and not calories are what's relevant for weight.

    I think your approach is perfectly sensible and, IME, it is also the mainstream one from low carbers and keto-ers on MFP, but on some other sites that is not true. (When I was experimenting with keto I was exploring commentary from keto-fans on the net, and found a lot of people insisting calories did not matter.)

    It's not McDougall-specific, but I have encountered WFPB people who insist that it's impossible to be an unhealthy weight if you do WFPB "right." Sometimes this is a belief that a WFPB diet will automatically make you a successful intuitive eater (that is, you will automatically consume the right number of calories to support your ideal body weight), but I've also met some people who are seeming to argue that your body cannot store excess calories unless you're eating incorrectly . . . which is pretty much a denial that calories matter.

    McDougall is, in my readings, pretty cagey about what he's actually claiming for his program. He writes about how he encourages "unrestricted eating" and that his program participants never have a "moment of hunger," but will lose 3.5 pounds a week while eating "to the full satisfaction of their natural and healthy appetite." He writes that this is because the foods allowed on his plan satisfy the "hunger drive." He also claims that exercise encourages your brain to ask your body for less food (while one is carrying extra weight), which further increases the effectiveness of his program. So I would classify him as someone who argues that calories do matter, but that we can "hack" the system so we can ignore them if we eliminate the right foods (which I don't think is an effective approach for the average person seeking a sustainable approach to weight management, but of course some individuals do have successful with methods like this).

    What I was thinking of is something of his I read where he seems to argue that because it's so preferred for the body to store fat as fat that if you eat low-enough fat and high starch that it really won't matter how much you eat. It seemed like the reverse of the Taubes et al. argument when I read it. (But I am not a McDougall expert.)

    Given other things I've read of his, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he said something like that. I know he's made statements that if you eat a high fat diet, your body will store fat (even if you're not eating to excess).
Sign In or Register to comment.