What nobody tells you about losing weight

Fit2btied2016 wrote: »

BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »

Fit2btied2016 wrote: »

It's absolutely time-consuming to read each and every label, and yet there is no other option.

Wise words. I have been reading labels since I was able to read, often to the ridicule of those around me, but I didn't care about that. My reasoning has always been, or at least for as long as I remember, that if someone made the effort of writing something on or enclosed with a product that I spend money on, it is worth my time to read it. After all, part of my payment went to pay for this (dis)information. That includes nutrition facts labels and manuals and any other stuff. It is also why I have always rejected the claim of "hidden sugars" and the like. How is something hidden if it is mentioned right there for all to read? To read or not to read is a personal freedom and choice, but when one chooses not to read something, it is –in my opinion– dishonest to talk about "hidden whatevers" when those whatevers are staring us in the face.

Your post brought up an interesting point about reading food labels and such. "Hidden sugars" are a bit tricky though, because even I had to research all the different names that sugar goes by! There are at least 22 different names for sugars that I have come across. The average person will not know that, and probably also will not know how to read a food label.

Unless a person has some sort of research to help them, or actually takes the time to dissect each and every ingredient, they may not be aware that barley malt syrup is a type of sweetener, as one example.

Agave syrup is very sweet, and it is used in making Tequila, but it's touted as a natural sweetener that can be just as bad as using ordinary table sugar.

Some people can be fooled by the "organic" label-Organic cane sugar. LOL. No such thing, really. ALL sugar has to be processed (ie. refined) in order to be put into a crystallized product.

I could go on. Nutrition labels are deceptive, and marketing companies are very good at making that sugary granola cereal sell ;-) The very first ingredient on a label is the most plentiful. They go down in descending order.

Food labels MUST by law be listed that way in many countries. "Low fat" is a key marketing blip for "high sugar" in many cases, or "high sodium," or both. If you take fat out (which is naturally flavourful), you have to replace it with something for taste-enter sugar and salt.

People buying "low-fat" items are probably better off just eating the fat on a nice steak rather than the marketing-hyped item.

Packaging has to sell the item along with marketing. There is the perception that a shiny car will look better, run better and be better cared-for than the same one, but dirty. Same with labels--which is more attractive--the brown paper bag, or the shiny box with pictures?

Most people buy on some sort of emotional appeal, or they go shopping when hungry and buy what appeals to their current sense of hunger/taste/smell. It takes work to "go beyond" the instant-gratification of the outer label to really figure out what is inside that package...

You bring up good and valid points, but I would point out the one thing that is important for weight loss: the calorie count. It does not matter where they come from. The only thing that matters is that they are there. Once people get that point, they can learn to be more refined but they should never lose sight of the fact that calories are the only thing that really matters where it comes to weight loss, as studies have shown over and over.

Of course, when talking about certain health aspects, other parts of the label are important as well, even extremely important, but people should never lose sight of the fact that while health and weight *are* closely related, they are also distinct.

As for sugar: it is unimportant, the label does not distinguish between them. It just says "carbohydrates". There is nothing hidden about that. Sure, it is -chemically speaking- a gross simplification, but it is one that is only important when one is in a situation where it is important and those situations are health situations, not weight situations.

The one exception to that rule *might* be fibre, but even that is somewhat controversial where weight loss is concerned because fibre is too diverse, and we don't really know all that much about how much is directly or indirectly digested and ultimately converted into energy. That is why I look at fibre to get to targets, but I include all its calories into my calorie count. After all, calorie-wise, fibre has relatively little impact because the quantities we *can* eat without discomfort are quite low, so there is no need to take them account for weight loss.

For example, at my age, 30 g of fibre is recommended. That is approximately 120 kcal. Assuming that only half of those calories are ultimately absorbed, that means a difference of 60 kcal. No weight management programme will be that precise anyway, our measurements are too imprecise. There is no compelling reason to subtract those from the total (and no one I know has ever done that anyway ^_^).

I compare it to television: whether a programme is good or bad does not matter at all for power consumption: Good Programmes consume just as much electricity as Bad Programmes.
The one piece of information that might confuse people is that Kcal and Cal are just different symbols for the same quantities.

I should add that your points are well taken. People should learn this stuff at school. It is important. Maybe they should learn a tiny little bit less about which "sports hero" won what "cup" and a tiny little bit more about stuff that is actually important for their health and will impact their lives until they snuff it.

As for "organic", sure, there is a reason why many of call the "organic" stuff just a tax on the gullible and the worried well. Agave syrup is an interesting one: people are fulminating against high-fructose corn syrup, but are simultaneously paying extra for agave syrup that contains vastly more fructose. It is ridiculous and deeply sad.