It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic

page: 22
141
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

excellent point. although were coke and processed food are present obesity is a pandemic.
sugar in itself is no needed to sustain your body. your body produces its own sugar.
sugar is artificial to 200.000 or even 800.000 years of evolution.
look at your digestive system and enzymes.
we cannot as humans break down processed carbs. or rather we can, its just we turn them to fat. and with the fat deposit the toxins present in processed food are also put away for a rainy day.
10,20, 30 years....slow death.
then add toxins, and hormones and such.
bingo.
you have created cancer and autoimmune diseases.
people do in theory have a choice as what to eat and how much, BUT all government and company propaganda shows BAD guidelines.
95% of a supermarket is crap.
And then people come along, saying it isn't unhealthy, BUT it is.
Your views don't really help people overcome obesity, autoimmune diseases, and such.
Our bodies are not evolved to eat this crap.
Its that easy.


edit on 31-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


You're not going to change that no matter how load you scream. All I'm saying is that it isn't because of hfcs but because they have their own personal habits.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

Slow death is all we have. 60, 70, 80 maybe 90 years with luck. A thousand years ago that would seem like a god send and they didn't have hfcs. So making it out to be the bad guy just seems wrong.

Sugar is not artificial, it is present in every fruit that we eat. Sure not how we see it today but the body does not process it in a different way. If it is in an orange or a twinkie it doesn't know the difference.

All I'm saying is that the real world doesn't match the lab results. When this is the case then the scientific communtiy has to refine their theories.

edit on 31-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Wow just coca cola then so this has nothing to do with it







Sorry but this is typical CONSPIRACY BS.

I know people who NEVER drink soft drinks and are overweight!
I know people who always drink soft drinks and are NOT overweight.
I know people who eat very large amounts of food and are NOT overweight.

To try and blame one item of food or drink is BS, when in the USA portion sizes are way to big.

Simple reason why MOST people get overweight, what they eat is more than they burn up during the day AND THAT IS FACT NOT BS!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

if you are referring to calories: you are wrong. yo do realize that calories are just a guide? they have been disproven to be accurate as referring to humans so many times, just do a search, will you? they are energy content, but not all energy is processed the same way. also, if calories were correct, it would assume the body is a closed system (energy conservation). it is not. and not only is is it an open system, but how are body chooses to process and store certain foods is extremely varied. a diet of snickers bars, will most likely kill you, but a diet of carrots? there was even a very stupid, simplistic documentary on this: super size me. well not this, but you get the idea. it matters what type of food you eat, not the calories. OUR body DOESNT count CALORIES. Typical fallacy.
if you are referring to the balance of carbs, protein and fat, you have a point.


edit on 31-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by BBalazs
 

Slow death is all we have. 60, 70, 80 maybe 90 years with luck. A thousand years ago that would seem like a god send and they didn't have hfcs. So making it out to be the bad guy just seems wrong.

Sugar is not artificial, it is present in every fruit that we eat. Sure not how we see it today but the body does not process it in a different way. If it is in an orange or a twinkie it doesn't know the difference.

All I'm saying is that the real world doesn't match the lab results. When this is the case then the scientific communtiy has to refine their theories.

edit on 31-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

i never said sugar is artificial.
i said we can live without it, as our body makes sugar from food.
anyway, you are in the fallacy of averages.
i think we would all rather live to be 60,70 in perfect health then live to a 100 in pain, agony and sickness for 40 years.
also, you got me confused with someone.
i never made it out to be a bad guy.
portion size and temperance is important.
but if i make someone out to be a bad guy, it is this: processed, hormonized carbs, with added content. basically food without nutritional value. and no, artificial vitamins at all. we cannot recreate nature. sorry, dude, to burst your bubble.
all these we are not handled to digest, wether you choose to believe me or not, it is a fact.
hfcs is just the tip of the iceberg, and because it is so pre levant, it is trojan horse of sickness.
edit on 31-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
also, you got me confused with someone.
i never made it out to be a bad guy.

I was referring to the OP.

I'm with you on the food with no nutritional value.

Portion size and temperance is what I have been telling the OP is the difference between the obesity numbers as far as Japan and the US. They have had the same trojan horse but it has not manifested itself in the same way.
edit on 31-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Yahoo has a story on the evils of soda on the 1st page today:

Surprising Reasons to Give Up Soda

Yahoo gets several million visitors per day, hopefully a big chunk of it will read the article.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


I agree with you. I don't care how 'uncool' I look but things really were much better when more of us lived off the land. And when life was simple. The good old days.

We have far to many bells in whistles in our food, lifestyles and systems. And they are making a noise. A terrible noise that is out of harmoney with man himself. Our lives are like commercial christmas trees; decadent and overdone.

When I buy food, I buy most of our food not packaged of processed. Raw fruit and veggies. Wish I had my own piece of land. The closer to it's natural state the better for man and nature.

It once again reminds me of the quote by Bradford Brown:
"We ask for simple answers to life's problems,
when we get simple ones we get confused."



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I totally 100% agree with Cola's and high fructose being a HUGE contributor to our obesity...

HOWEVER, I don't believe that all carbs are bad... Take potatoes for instance... These are complex carbs and they keep you full, your body burns a lot of calories just to digest it, and its chalk full of minerals and nutrients.

Most people that scream potatoes are bad for you, are Atkins-Head low carb fanatics, that you look at and you're like... "Man... that must be why you're so pale... you're almost turning green!"

So it comes down to a lot of Common sense... I'd agree muffins, bread and even corn, can be bad for you (carbs)... but some are still highly needed (potatoes, avacadoes, whole grain organic wheat), which would be just nuts to remove from your diet.

It's like Salt... too much is very very bad... but NONE is even worse. You NEED salt to survive, its your only way to retain water, and without it, you WILL die very very quickly.
edit on 31-1-2012 by mindpurge because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


I agree with you. I don't care how 'uncool' I look but things really were much better when more of us lived off the land. And when life was simple. The good old days.

We have far to many bells in whistles in our food, lifestyles and systems. And they are making a noise. A terrible noise that is out of harmoney with man himself. Our lives are like commercial christmas trees; decadent and overdone.

When I buy food, I buy most of our food not packaged of processed. Raw fruit and veggies. Wish I had my own piece of land. The closer to it's natural state the better for man and nature.

It once again reminds me of the quote by Bradford Brown:
"We ask for simple answers to life's problems,
when we get simple ones we get confused."
how true,how many times I've heard "it can't be that simple"the thing is that I raised my family the way I was raised as far as nutrition goes.But when we drank soda it was diet,long story short,my son came up with a condition directly linked to aspartame and nobody will convince me otherwise.So with that all we drink is water,and I water and coffee.Until they decide to poison coffee(lol, I couldn't imagine living without).
I remember going to my fathers garden,back in the 80's,we would get up early in the morning before the temperatures rose to unbearable and pick what was ready to eat,I didn't realize how good we had it then.We would spend the afternoons canning,beans,tomatos,corn you name it we canned it. I be forever grateful for those memories.

I never ever thought we would be in this situation of worring about the poisons in our food,what the corporations aren't getting is that people will never forget what they have done and in the long run it 's going to hurt them.period..

Anyway I believe the only way we can beat them is by refusing to buy their products,(complete non compliance)and maybe then we will see changes.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Wow just coca cola then so this has nothing to do with it







Sorry but this is typical CONSPIRACY BS.

I know people who NEVER drink soft drinks and are overweight!
I know people who always drink soft drinks and are NOT overweight.
I know people who eat very large amounts of food and are NOT overweight.

To try and blame one item of food or drink is BS, when in the USA portion sizes are way to big.

Simple reason why MOST people get overweight, what they eat is more than they burn up during the day AND THAT IS FACT NOT BS!



Right -- Dr. Lustig covers the issue of fat intake compared to sugar intake. The percentage of calorie intake from fat has gone down while the percentage from sugar has sky-rocketed and most of it is from HFCS.

HFCS is not just in Coca Cola -- it's in ketchup, it's in hamburger buns, etc.

So HFCS needs to be regulated like alcohol according to Dr. Lustig -- but instead it's institutionalized for captive consumers: WIC, schools, workplaces, etc.



But from 1976 to 2011 fat consumption in the American diet has gone down, from 36% to 32%, while carb consumption has gone up, from 43% to 50%. --Center for Disease Control





And in those carbs - I'm going to make a leap here, but it's pretty obvious - the problem is sugar. Because the big change to "carbs" over that period is the ever-increasing percentage of sugar. In particular, sugar added to processed food. In the US processed food includes all fast food but salad and coffee and pretty much everything in the grocery store that isn't raw or uncooked except maybe hard-boiled eggs. According to the USDA, sugar consumption increased 39 percent between 1950–59 and 2000 as use of corn sweeteners octupled.





But if you wanted to put together a better formula, here's a hint. Alcohol and fructose are metabolized in very much the same ways and have many of the same adverse effects, including obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Shouldn't fructose be discouraged at least as much as alcohol.

edit on 31-1-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


First they put coc aine in it for soldiers, then they switched to caffeine...now they have a chemical in it that raises sales at the price of national health?! What are these #holes thinking!??!?

And that isn't the end of it...do you know how many products have fructose in it? Juice, for starters! And who drinks juice?

Our children!



edit on CTuesdaypm101038f38America/Chicago31 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Some believe that people should be free to put whatever they want in their bodies.

It's funny that you are complaining about the hold that corporations have on the food supply and your answer is to place even tighter controls on it by the government that gets huge contributions from these companies thereby strengthening their hold even more.


edit on 31-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
People are making this far more difficult than it need be. Yes, there are bad foods out there. They are pretty obvious. It's also obvious to anyone who can rub two brain cells together that drinking excessive coke can make you unhealthy and gain weight. Not rocket surgery here. While calorie counting is not exact, it's an excellent guideline.

Everyone has the ability to lose weight. Nothing is stopping the vast majority of vast Americans from doing it except themselves. It's an easy concept, and the reason it doesn't happen for most is because they don't want to put in the work and effort, that's it. Evil soda corporations are not stopping people from exercising, or forcing them to drink a 6 pack a night while they sit immobile on their rears while on their game systems, watching tv, or doing whatever they do.

I see the proof daily at the gym in my complex. Last night, went for about an hour and 20 minutes. There is probably around 1200 + residents in our complex. 0 people were there while I was. This common. I see plenty of overweight people in the complex... the couple living next to me are, and the guy downstairs is quite huge. I never see them at the gym. Laziness. They COULD go, but they choose not to. This is not one's fault but their own!

Take some damn responibility. Buy and eat better foods and exercise, and you won't be obese. You don't have to eat like a vegan to be healthy.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

There is no such thing as a good calorie or a bad calorie. It's a unit of energy. As long as you BURN more calories than you INTAKE, you will lose weight, end of story.


You're still not getting it. Obesity is NOT a psychologically driven disease; it's physiologically driven. You're over simplifying the laws of thermodynamics. Any idiot knows that, in a controlled, closed system, if energy in is greater than energy out, weight is increased. And vice versa.

Energy In - Energy Out = Change In Energy Stores

The catch is that our bodies are self-regulating systems that are not closed. If we don't screw with the intricate balance of hormones by eating the wrong, our bodies will match energy in-out unconsciously. Trying to fix an energy balance problem by changing energy in/out only results in more adjustments by the body.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Maintenance of a reduced or elevated body weight is associated with compensatory changes in energy expenditure, which oppose the maintenance of a body weight that is different from the usual weight. These compensatory changes may account for the poor long-term efficacy of treatments for obesity.


That is to say, caloric restriction and body weight loss results in the down regulation of metabolism.


I'm not misinformed. I've had back problem........


I'm glad you were able to get results and also able to give advice to someone who also got results. Unfortunately, however, anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much weight. I've had plenty of success myself, but you won't see me touting what worked for me and citing it as evidence or proof.


If you burn more calories than you take in, you HAVE to lose weight, unless you are a scientific miracle. It's ENERGY. That's like saying you drove 10 miles but gained 2 gallons of gas.


Systemic Analysis - Does physical activity prevent weight gain.


Before new methods to improve exercise adherence are found, the role of prescribed physical activity in prevention of weight gain remains modest.


Food intake and body composition in novice athletes during a training period to run a marathon.

After 18 months of training for a marathon, the male subjects lost 2.5 pounds and the female subjects lost 0. The difference? Women replaced fat with carbohydrates (carbs influence insulin levels).


There is no doubt that with exercise, a healthy eating lifestyle works wonders.


I don't disagree.


if you are taking the effort to exercise.. say, you do an hour on an elliptical for 830 calories (which is my average.. I always go longer though, until I hit 1000 calories), why would you want to suck in a 1200 calorie Schlotzky's sandwhich?


Just another example of misinformed. You would want to eat because you worked up an appetite. Remember that saying? When you take in less calories than you're burning, you get hungry, especially when you're exercising (which is why exercising is less effective than simply dieting). What you burn during your workout (which is mainly glucose, btw, from muscle, diet and glycogen), is irrelevant. Following a workout with the right type of meal can net much better results than simply fasting.


People are fat because they choose to be.


That's absolutely ridiculous. I've personally worked with obese and overweight individuals (and once was overweight, myself). There's nothing more defeating than dedicating time and effort and money to trying to lose weight only to see it return with a little more. It's depressing. Yes, there are people who choose to be fat. There are sick people who choose not to go to the doctor, too, but we're not talking about those who wish not to be treated.

Obesity researchers readily admit that dieting (eating less) and exercise (burning more) doesn't work well in the long term for obesity treatment. But they keep doing it because it's supposed to work according to thermodynamics. Until people like you and researchers and such stop adhering to the energy balance version of obesity treatment and start realizing that the problem is physiological, not psychological, then we'll see more consensus. We'll see more results in the medical literature.

Energy expenditure does not predict weight change in either Nigerian or African American women.


These data suggest that interindividual levels of energy expended during activity do not have a large influence on age-related trends in adiposity. In addition, contrary to expectations, these data suggest that mean activity energy expenditure does not vary substantially between contemporary social groups with low and high prevalences of obesity.



edit on 31-1-2012 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

I don't think that fleabit doesn't get it. He's just stating it in the simplest terms. You don't need the government controlling what you put in your mouth or watching coca-cola co. fall in order to make the changes which will put your body back in balance but you have to make a conscious choice to do so. Blaming anything else is a cop out.





edit on 31-1-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Thank you. Our bodies are not closed systems. Energy Balance is based on closed systems.

When you eat more than you expend, you're involuntary movements/actions increase, you become less hungry, your body temperature increases and you have the feeling of wanting to move around or exercise. All of this is in effort to burn more calories and restore energy balance...and it's a subconscious regulatory system. It's called compensatory down-regulation of metabolism.

When you eat less than you expend/burn more than you eat, you become tired, lethargic, lazy, body temperature decreases, involuntary movements decrease, energy is released from storage and hunger ensues. Once again, all in an effort to restore energy balance.

This regulatory system works properly when hormonal homeostasis exists (when we're teens, for example). Once certain foods disrupt it, obesity, and other diseases, progressively develop.

And if you try to restrict calories in someone who is overweight and unable to access fat for reserves, they just get more hungrier and more lazy. It's not a "put down the fork" issue. It's much deeper and much harder to control than most of you think. Trying to control it simply makes it worse. Trying to workout to burn more calories instead will also lead to ravenous hunger and lethargy.
edit on 31-1-2012 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


He certainly doesn't get it. And most people don't. I understand that you can't physically lose weight without losing energy. You have to burn or excrete more energy than you intake. Nobody disagrees with that. I disagree with the idea that consciously eating less and exercising more with the intent to maintain a negative energy balance.

The science tends to be in my corner as well.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindpurge
I totally 100% agree with Cola's and high fructose being a HUGE contributor to our obesity...

HOWEVER, I don't believe that all carbs are bad... Take potatoes for instance... These are complex carbs and they keep you full, your body burns a lot of calories just to digest it, and its chalk full of minerals and nutrients.

Most people that scream potatoes are bad for you, are Atkins-Head low carb fanatics, that you look at and you're like... "Man... that must be why you're so pale... you're almost turning green!"

So it comes down to a lot of Common sense... I'd agree muffins, bread and even corn, can be bad for you (carbs)... but some are still highly needed (potatoes, avacadoes, whole grain organic wheat), which would be just nuts to remove from your diet.

It's like Salt... too much is very very bad... but NONE is even worse. You NEED salt to survive, its your only way to retain water, and without it, you WILL die very very quickly.
edit on 31-1-2012 by mindpurge because: (no reason given)


You are repeating the fallacies that you have been taught. If you knew the facts, you wouldn't.

Organic whole grain wheat, for instance. Read the book, "Wheat Belly," and learn why modern hybrid wheat is causing all sorts of illness.

Also, did you know that 2 slices of whole wheat (organic or not) bread raise blood glucose more than a candy bar? Do you know why that matters?

Adkins got it wrong because he went off the deep end and ignored the body's need for nutrients. Vegetables, good fats - yes. All meat and grease, not so much.

Potatoes are another glucose producing food. It doesn't kill anyone to eat a small amount of starches or even to down a Coke once in a while, but to believe the whole grain goodness lie, or the complex carbs are good sources of 'energy' lie is to feed the problem. Americans eat very much along the lines of what they have been told is good. Yes, some abuse their bodies. But most people don't intentionally.

Look at the explosive increase of diabetes. Look at the abdominal fat people wear around their middles. What do you suppose causes this? It's not as simple as saying eat less.

Insulin resistance. Google it. You will see how this is fed by the heavy ingestion of glucose creating stuff. Sugar is bad. HFCS is bad. Starches, too, are bad if you wish to avoid the problems of insulin reisistance and possible type 2 diabetes. Even too much protein raises blood insulin. (I didn't say blood glucose. I said it has an insulin response)

So, the game is to read, read, read the studies and question everything. Look for things that work long term, and forget the platitudes you learn on TV or from the FDA.

So, while i agree with you on the avocados being good, I would argue that you would be nuts NOT to remove potatoes and whole grain, organic wheat and all other wheat from your diet-particularly if you have an insulin resistance problem.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join