That Sugar Film

[ktgrok]

We watched this today in my house as we are cutting back on processed food and sugar in particular. It was fun to watch, with even my 7 yr old enjoying it. The 4 yr old wandered in and out. What I found starkly horrifying was that over the 2 month test period, eating only "healthy" food with hidden sugar, things like granola bars and low fat flavored yogurts, breakfast cereals, etc (and no cake/cookies/candy) he easily hit 40 tsp of sugar a day and gained nearly 20 pounds! And that was without changing his caloric intake or exercise program. He also developed markers for fatty liver disease and increased his waist circumference. 

 

I will say, if you have any dental phobic people, skip the part where the dentist starts working on a young man with "mountain dew mouth". His gums are so infected they can't numb him and it was very painful. The had to abort the procedure entirely. If you or a young one are afraid of dentists, or have an appt coming up that might not be good to watch. It's only a few minutes though. 

[SquirrellyMama]

Where did you watch it. Sounds interesting?

 

Kelly

[EmseB]

What I found starkly horrifying was that over the 2 month test period, eating only "healthy" food with hidden sugar, things like granola bars and low fat flavored yogurts, breakfast cereals, etc (and no cake/cookies/candy) he easily hit 40 tsp of sugar a day and gained nearly 20 pounds!

This is exactly what we were discussing in the snack thread. Only at my kid's co-op they added in a juice box.

[bodiesmom]

This documentary is amazing!

We watched it several months ago and I believe it was on Netflix

[Kanin]

Oh man.... I've watched it twice. It's incredible! I was shocked that the "healthy" foods (organic granola bars, yogurt, etc) caused that guy to gain a LOT of weight around his middle. He wasn't eating what most people would consider a high-sugar diet... but our culturally acceptable levels of sugar really AREN'T acceptable for our bodies.

 

I watched it on Amazon prime video.

[Guinevere]

This is exactly what we were discussing in the snack thread. Only at my kid's co-op they added in a juice box.

Exactly! It is bad, and it frustrates me that kids' sports teams all do the snack thing. I don't sign my kids up for sports so they can eat more junk than they ever get at home!

Edited August 27, 2017 by Guinevere

[Sunshine State Sue]

Where did you watch it. Sounds interesting?

I borrowed it on DVD from the library.

 

[ktgrok]

Where did you watch it. Sounds interesting?

 

Kelly

 

Amazon. It's included free with Prime. 

[Guest]

I watched it on Amazon Prime. I think it is like anything else- use moderation and good sense.

I'm not into scare tactics.

The dentist scene made me almost throw up! That was too graphic!

(I know I keep editing. I'm a bit distracted tonight.)

Edited August 27, 2017 by Paradox5

[regentrude]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant (ETA and did not change his exercise pattern)

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

ETA: If you google That Sugar film criticism" you will find a number of analyses that look at the faulty science behind the film.

Edited August 27, 2017 by regentrude

[ktgrok]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant.

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

 

You are assuming his metabolic rate remained the same. 

[regentrude]

You are assuming his metabolic rate remained the same. 

 

Time scales are too short and magnitude of effect is too large - metabolic rates most likely do not alter this drastically in such a short time.

 

As a scientist, I want a clean documentation of data before I believe a claim. As far as I have found, he has not presented these data anywhere. He has only estimated his personal caloric intake, which is notoriously unreliable. 

I prefer science over propaganda.

Edited August 27, 2017 by regentrude

[ktgrok]

He certainly could have been burning less calories from feeling lethargic, so sitting more than standing, etc. 

 

Either way, even if he hadn't gained a pound, the changes in his liver were pretty yucky. And his triglycerides. 

[Corraleno]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant (ETA and did not change his exercise pattern)

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

ETA: If you google That Sugar film criticism" you will find a number of analyses that look at the faulty science behind the film.

 

:iagree:

 

From what I've read, there are a lot of unsupported claims and downright falsehoods in the movie. Plus one of his main "experts" is David "Avocado" Wolfe??? Wolfe is a total charlatan with fake degrees who believes that chemtrails are poisoning us, gravity is a "toxin," vaccines are evil, people should plug their bodies into the ground wire of electrical sockets to "discharge electrical energy from stress," and that "chocolate lines up planetarily with the sun [and is] in the same solar octave as serotonin, smiles, and gold." He is literally a snake oil salesman — he sells tiny bottles of "deer antler extract" for 75 bucks, which he claims contain "cosmic androgenic substances that are levitational in nature," which will basically cure all your problems and make you young again.

 

Other so-called "experts" in the movie are also not what they seem, e.g. the "NASA physicist" who doesn't have a PhD and can't provide any evidence that he worked for NASA (he claims he worked on super-secret stuff he can't talk about). 

 

Even the claims about the "liver damage" are suspect:

 

The project’s most disturbing finding, that Gameau developed fatty liver disease in only 18 days, has been emphasized in the film’s reviews. But it strikes me as a gross exaggeration. The claim is based on something called an ALT test, which looks for levels of a liver enzyme in the blood. Gameau’s went from a baseline score of 20 up to 60 at the next reading—enough of an uptick for his doctor to declare his liver “damaged.†But your ALT score doesn’t tell you the status of your liver; it only hints that you might be at higher risk of having problems. And the ALT test is known to be somewhat unreliable, going up and down depending on your level of exercise, whether you’ve been taking Tylenol, and several other factors. One study even found that 30 percent of patients with elevated ALT scores turned out to be in the normal range when they were retested two weeks later.

[LMD]

My kids liked the movie. I found the presenter and his girlfriend cringe worthingly smug.

[Guest]

My kids liked the movie. I found the presenter and his girlfriend cringe worthingly smug.

I agree.

[poppy]

This is an anti-science documentary.    

[ktgrok]

ALT varies but didn't he have scans showing liver enlargement? Thats how my fatty liver was diagnosed.

[Rosie_0801]

My kids liked the movie. I found the presenter and his girlfriend cringe worthingly smug.

 

I think your wife's first pregnancy is the wrong time to have a midlife crisis and go gallivanting across the globe.

[LMD]

I think your wife's first pregnancy is the wrong time to have a midlife crisis and go gallivanting across the globe.

Yep. All the 'my lady' made my skin crawl...

 

But hey, the eat less sugar and watch out for hidden sugars messages are always welcome. It just would've been more palatable without the privileged smugness.

[SarahW]

 

:iagree:

 

From what I've read, there are a lot of unsupported claims and downright falsehoods in the movie. Plus one of his main "experts" is David "Avocado" Wolfe??? Wolfe is a total charlatan with fake degrees who believes that chemtrails are poisoning us, gravity is a "toxin," vaccines are evil, people should plug their bodies into the ground wire of electrical sockets to "discharge electrical energy from stress," and that "chocolate lines up planetarily with the sun [and is] in the same solar octave as serotonin, smiles, and gold." He is literally a snake oil salesman — he sells tiny bottles of "deer antler extract" for 75 bucks, which he claims contain "cosmic androgenic substances that are levitational in nature," which will basically cure all your problems and make you young again.

 

Other so-called "experts" in the movie are also not what they seem, e.g. the "NASA physicist" who doesn't have a PhD and can't provide any evidence that he worked for NASA (he claims he worked on super-secret stuff he can't talk about). 

 

Even the claims about the "liver damage" are suspect:

 

 

 

David Wolfe has 5 clips in the film (that I counted). The first lasts about 5 seconds, the others about 10 seconds. In it he says crazy stuff like "shop the perimeter of the supermarket" and "provide fruits and vegetables to children."

 

What's your point???

 

 

 

I'm glad some people are taking on sugar. My FIL's mother considered sugar to be health food. Seriously, she thought it was healthy. She forced my FIL and DH to add it to their cereal and yogurt. They are both now T2D. And DH and I still can't convince FIL to stop adding sugar all over his food. My MIL is also a total sugar addict. She thinks that as long as it's low-fat, it's healthy. She'll down cartons of super-concentrated tropical fruit juice. And if I roast a chicken with its skin on she won't eat any of it. But since she's still hungry after dinner, she'll eat a huge bowl of (low fat) vanilla pudding. It's INSANE. And then she's confused about why her weight is ballooning, and why if she's cut way back on the meat, why she still got cancer. I mean, hasn't she been doing everything right?

 

Crazypants has teeth issues (SPD issues with his mouth means he doesn't brush well). We're working on it, as much as the SPD allows, but MIL keeps trying to feed him sandwiches with chocolate paste, not even Nutella, but straight up 90% sugar chocolate paste. And she's confused why this upsets me. I mean, there's no fat in it, so why is it a problem?

 

I'm so done with sugar. DONE. 

[Guest]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant (ETA and did not change his exercise pattern)

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

ETA: If you google That Sugar film criticism" you will find a number of analyses that look at the faulty science behind the film.

 

My personal experience is that you don't need those add'l calories to pack on pounds.  What you need is blood sugar that's too high....when it is, calories are stored as fat, even if they are just normal daily amount.  I'm currently off the med that did that, and my weight has dropped like a rock.  Same diet - I was raised on 'meat and three' without the cornbread, so basically  salad, meat, green veg, colored veg. fruit, occasionally sweet and I don't eat socially since its so bread laden.  There are physicians who have documented this .. but they are all dismissed as not studious enough.. so lots of evidence, lots of individuals getting advice that works for them, but no funding for controlled study. 

 

 People I know that eat their calories as all sugar and a bit of meat are morbidly obese..and they can't understand why since they control their calories to the number the nutritionist says will cause weight loss.  Sugar matters. Blood sugar matters more.  Be nice if studies would be done, but it involves loss of income for so many people that it won't happen.

[Sarah CB]

My personal experience is that you don't need those add'l calories to pack on pounds.  What you need is blood sugar that's too high....when it is, calories are stored as fat, even if they are just normal daily amount.  I'm currently off the med that did that, and my weight has dropped like a rock.  Same diet - I was raised on 'meat and three' without the cornbread, so basically  salad, meat, green veg, colored veg. fruit, occasionally sweet and I don't eat socially since its so bread laden.  There are physicians who have documented this .. but they are all dismissed as not studious enough.. so lots of evidence, lots of individuals getting advice that works for them, but no funding for controlled study. 

 

 People I know that eat their calories as all sugar and a bit of meat are morbidly obese..and they can't understand why since they control their calories to the number the nutritionist says will cause weight loss.  Sugar matters. Blood sugar matters more.  Be nice if studies would be done, but it involves loss of income for so many people that it won't happen.

 

Exactly. Even when I cut calories, if I'm eating sugar I either maintain my weight or gain. When I get rid of sugar completely, the weight comes off.

 

I'm on a FB group for the Ketogenic diet and there were two people (one man, one woman) who upped their calories to 5,000 calories a day for a month. The woman was about 135lbs when she started and I think she actually lost a couple of pounds that month. 

[Bootsie]

You are assuming his metabolic rate remained the same. 

He claims that his resting metabolic rate was 1676 at the beginning.  So, without an increase in caloric intake or a reduction in exercise/activity, his resting metabolic rate would have had to drop to zero for a change in metabolic rate to be the explanation of the weight gain.  

 

It seems to me if he is able to count accurately the added sugar in his diet, it would have been equally as easy to count accurately the calories in his diet.  

[historically accurate]

He claims that his resting metabolic rate was 1676 at the beginning.  So, without an increase in caloric intake or a reduction in exercise/activity, his resting metabolic rate would have had to drop to zero for a change in metabolic rate to be the explanation of the weight gain.  

 

It seems to me if he is able to count accurately the added sugar in his diet, it would have been equally as easy to count accurately the calories in his diet.  

 

I watched it last night due to this thread actually.

 

As to the bolded, it kind of jarred me when he did that one bit with the adding the teaspoons of sugar instead of the flavoring to his chicken, his yogurt, and his cereal. He just threw it on there without measuring - sugar was flying everywhere and I don't think he used an actual measuring spoon - it was a spoon you eat with. I decided if you are trying to convince me you are doing this scientifically, then I expect proper measurements (even if it was just as a bit to catch my attention).

 

I really didn't have much of an opinion of the show as a whole. He rubbed me the wrong way, so I had trouble paying too close of attention.

[Bluegoat]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant (ETA and did not change his exercise pattern)

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

ETA: If you google That Sugar film criticism" you will find a number of analyses that look at the faulty science behind the film.

 

I was wondering about this too.

 

Food films are kind of notorious for being dodgy science.

[ktgrok]

I watched it last night due to this thread actually.

 

As to the bolded, it kind of jarred me when he did that one bit with the adding the teaspoons of sugar instead of the flavoring to his chicken, his yogurt, and his cereal. He just threw it on there without measuring - sugar was flying everywhere and I don't think he used an actual measuring spoon - it was a spoon you eat with. I decided if you are trying to convince me you are doing this scientifically, then I expect proper measurements (even if it was just as a bit to catch my attention).

 

I really didn't have much of an opinion of the show as a whole. He rubbed me the wrong way, so I had trouble paying too close of attention.

 

I don't think he was actually eating that way, he was making a dramatic point. It was for effect, I assume. Mostly because ugh, I don't think someone could actually eat that stuff and not vomit, lol. 

[SarahW]

Time scales are too short and magnitude of effect is too large - metabolic rates most likely do not alter this drastically in such a short time.

 

As a scientist, I want a clean documentation of data before I believe a claim. As far as I have found, he has not presented these data anywhere. He has only estimated his personal caloric intake, which is notoriously unreliable. 

I prefer science over propaganda.

 

 

I was curious, and went to his website. And he actually does blog every single day of the 60 day filming, and lists what he eats. I suppose if a person wanted, they could go through there and make their own calculations. And he does say that he had a team of people go over his daily food log to calculate some of the hard-to-calculate things and double check.

 

So, the data is there.

[MBM]

Robert Lustig has talked about the harmful effects of sugar. Years ago, Linus Pauling discussed very well-designed studies in his book and came to the conclusion that sugar consumption is harmful, too.

 

As for CICO, circadian rhythm significantly affects weight gain or loss. Satchin Panda studies this.

 

 

Additionally, hormone signaling affects weight and body composition. I belong to a group that follows Jason Fung's advice (keto / low carb / fasting). Many of Fung's followers have lost and kept off large amounts of weight, especially fat which some measure with DEXA scans and not a scale. These are people who've had weight problems for decades, trying many different diets with little success. They experience all kinds of health benefits. I am not overweight but I follow Fung's and Valter Longo's fasting protocols for the health benefits of autophagy.

 

The people I think are worth checking out:

 

Just about anyone Rhonda Patrick interviews

Robert Lustig

Valter Longo

Jason Fung

Thomas Seyfried

Dominic D'Agostino

 

[Bootsie]

I don't think he was actually eating that way, he was making a dramatic point. It was for effect, I assume. Mostly because ugh, I don't think someone could actually eat that stuff and not vomit, lol. 

I agree that this is probably making a dramatic point.  What I have a problem with is curriculum about this being developed for schools and being presented as nutrition, science, and even exercises to develop critical thinking skills.  

[historically accurate]

I don't think he was actually eating that way, he was making a dramatic point. It was for effect, I assume. Mostly because ugh, I don't think someone could actually eat that stuff and not vomit, lol. 

 

I assumed the same, but in a "scientific" documentary, it didn't fit, imo.

[whitestavern]

I agree that this is probably making a dramatic point.  What I have a problem with is curriculum about this being developed for schools and being presented as nutrition, science, and even exercises to develop critical thinking skills.  

 

It wouldn't be any worse than the crap that has been developed, such as the My Plate and Food Pyramid, etc.

 

But honestly, there will NEVER be a curriculum developed around consuming less sugar. Trust me.

[ktgrok]

I assumed the same, but in a "scientific" documentary, it didn't fit

 I agree it is more edutainment than scienctific documentary. But for science I go to Lustig's Bitter Truth talk. That, however, is nearly 2 hours of biochemistry, which would be above my 7 yr old daughter's head. 

[MBM]

In regard to carbs/fats, the Lancet just came out with the results of the following mortality studies.

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/29/low-fat-diet-linked-higher-death-rates-major-lancet-study-finds/

Edited August 29, 2017 by MBM

[Selkie]

In regard to carbs/fats, the Lancet just came out with the results of the following mortality studies.

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/29/low-fat-diet-linked-higher-death-rates-major-lancet-study-finds/

 

Very interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

[rutamattatt]

We watched this film as a family and are just finishing up a month of "healthy eating".  We cut out sugar and refined flour and processed foods.  We limited dairy and I didn't get crazy about condiments.  (Someone can pull the ketchup bottle out of my cold, dead hand.).   I don't know that I can quantify it in terms that would be considered scientific, but the changes have been pretty radical.  Not just weight (although we have all noticed a change in weight), but energy, temperment, habits.  

 

Do I think That Sugar Film is all factual and perfectly scientific?  Maybe not.  But it prompted us to make some changes that have yielded some positive and amazing results.  I think we always have to be careful not to blame one solitary factor for health issues.  I think cutting out sugar made a difference, but I also think the change in our eating schedule, our snacking, our water consumption, etc. contributed to what we consider a successful month too.  

[Sarah CB]

We watched this film as a family and are just finishing up a month of "healthy eating".  We cut out sugar and refined flour and processed foods.  We limited dairy and I didn't get crazy about condiments.  (Someone can pull the ketchup bottle out of my cold, dead hand.).   I don't know that I can quantify it in terms that would be considered scientific, but the changes have been pretty radical.  Not just weight (although we have all noticed a change in weight), but energy, temperment, habits.  

 

Do I think That Sugar Film is all factual and perfectly scientific?  Maybe not.  But it prompted us to make some changes that have yielded some positive and amazing results.  I think we always have to be careful not to blame one solitary factor for health issues.  I think cutting out sugar made a difference, but I also think the change in our eating schedule, our snacking, our water consumption, etc. contributed to what we consider a successful month too.  

 

I notice a huge difference in myself when I'm eating sugar vs. not eating it. How old are your kids and how did you do it? I am very careful about what I cook for meals at home and what I pack in their lunches, but my kids still end up buying candy and/or fast food a few times a week. Mine are 11, 15, and 17. 

 

I think they would all benefit from a reduction in sugar but I'm not sure how to implement it. I guess watching the movie would probably help motivate them?

[Guest]

Grrr. Our PTO had a guest speaker last night. It was a woman from the Extension Office talking about nutrition. She made us all a "healthy after school snack". Vanilla flavored yogurt, fruit and WalMart brand granola. I can't imagine the amount of sugar.

[rutamattatt]

I notice a huge difference in myself when I'm eating sugar vs. not eating it. How old are your kids and how did you do it? I am very careful about what I cook for meals at home and what I pack in their lunches, but my kids still end up buying candy and/or fast food a few times a week. Mine are 11, 15, and 17. 

 

I think they would all benefit from a reduction in sugar but I'm not sure how to implement it. I guess watching the movie would probably help motivate them?

 

Our kids are 13, 15, and 19.  Watching the film really helped motivate them to do this!  It's so gross!   :lol:   Our boys also work out a lot and have been hearing about how eating better paired with working out makes a bigger difference, so they were in.

 

We did what I refer to as a modified Whole 30.  We did Whole 30 EXCEPT we did eat some quinoa and rice (we switched to cauliflower rice which is delicious!) and we had couscous once too.  I did not cut out butter, but we switched to unsweetened vanilla almond milk when it wouldn't be gross.  (I used 2% milk in scrambled eggs because vanilla flavored scrambled eggs sound  :crying:.).  We cut out bread and white flour stuff.  No pasta. We didn't have any yogurt, but we did have some cheese (because we can't live like barbarians!).  I didn't cut out things like ketchup or salad dressing, but we tried to use with more moderation.  ZERO soda.  That was HUGE.

 

It took a lot of change for us to do this.  My kids are used to getting their own breakfasts and lunches, but I got up and made a healthy breakfast for us to eat together.  Kids packed lunches in the morning in Ziploc containers so that when they got hungry at lunchtime, healthy food was ready.  We ate out A LOT less.  (Fun fact:  grilled chicken nuggets and waffle fries from Chick-Fil-A are totally compliant!). 

 

Upside:  We ALL feel SO much better.  I am shocked at how much better we feel.  DS13 is far less quick to frustration.  Less snarking with each other all the way around.  Lots more energy.  All together I'm guessing the five of us will have lost a little over 30 pounds this month.  We were really never super hungry either!

 

Downside:  Expensive if you aren't efficient with produce and meat.  (We weren't always on top of that...)  I HATE cooking, and I cooked dinner most every night (whereas before I would weasel some take out).  It took me a lot of time and research to find foods that were healthy AND edible.  Pinterest was a life saver.  There was definitely some gastro-intestinal adjustments in the early days.   :laugh:   Lots of reading food labels. So many things I would pick up and think, "This will be good!" was actually full of sugar.  Ugh!

 

Overall, this has been one of the best things we've done as a family!  I'm almost nervous to have the official month end, even though we are going to try and continue eating this way.  The kids buying in on the front end was huge.  They just knew if they went out in the month of August, they needed to eat before they went (although I wasn't going to wig out if they ate something "bad") or they could eat healthy when they got home.  They all actually want to continue eating this way, but with a few "cheat" times now and again.  

[wintermom]

We watched this film as a family and are just finishing up a month of "healthy eating".  We cut out sugar and refined flour and processed foods.  We limited dairy and I didn't get crazy about condiments.  (Someone can pull the ketchup bottle out of my cold, dead hand.).   I don't know that I can quantify it in terms that would be considered scientific, but the changes have been pretty radical.  Not just weight (although we have all noticed a change in weight), but energy, temperment, habits.  

 

Do I think That Sugar Film is all factual and perfectly scientific?  Maybe not.  But it prompted us to make some changes that have yielded some positive and amazing results.  I think we always have to be careful not to blame one solitary factor for health issues.  I think cutting out sugar made a difference, but I also think the change in our eating schedule, our snacking, our water consumption, etc. contributed to what we consider a successful month too.  

 

Love it!  I just spoke with dh and he's on-board, which is wonderful as he is the Oreo cookie monster. 

 

I have been low sugar for the last 2 - 3 months, and am so pleased with my total lack of sugar cravings. I didn't believe it would be possible, as I was a hard core chocolate lover and sweet-tooth. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Unless he has been kept in a lab and fed a controlled diet, I am questioning his claim that he kept his caloric intake constant (ETA and did not change his exercise pattern)

You need to consume an additional 70,000 calories to make 20 lbs of fat. For this to happen over the course of two months, he would have had to consume an additional 1,166 calories per day, i.e. eat about 1.5 times as much as the average caloric intake. Nope, this is not scientifically sound.

 

(I agree with the message that there is too much added sugar in processed foods - but I cannot take this presentation seriously.)

ETA: If you google That Sugar film criticism" you will find a number of analyses that look at the faulty science behind the film.

 

Although, how do you explain the fact that when people go on diets and restrict calories they do not lose a steady amount per week?  I know there can be error in calculating calories, but how do you explain the fact they can go weeks and not lose anything at all?  Do you think they are all lying or cheating or what?  To me there must be some other factors at play.

 

I have a few more pounds I'd like to lose.  I definitely eat few calories yet for weeks I've hardly lost anything at all.  Why is that? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I learned something crazy the other day.  I might be the last to know, but it was interesting anyway.  If you look at nutrition labels and think hey look sugar is several ingredients down so it's not too bad.  WELL...a lot of companies use multiple forms of sugar that they list separately.  What people often do not realize is if you add up all those types of sugar, the sugar content would be pushed closer to the top of the ingredient list (or even at the top).  But companies are sneaky!  So the latest labeling guidelines require emphasis with the wording "added sugars".  Also, if you look at the glycemic index for sweeteners, pure sugar, while high (65 ish) is relatively not that bad (per this concept of glycemic index anything over 50 is high).  What is crazy is a lot of the weird sugar forms used regularly are MUCH MUCH higher than sugar.  Like 100 or 110!! 

[wintermom]

Although, how do you explain the fact that when people go on diets and restrict calories they do not lose a steady amount per week?  I know there can be error in calculating calories, but how do you explain the fact they can go weeks and not lose anything at all?  Do you think they are all lying or cheating or what?  To me there must be some other factors at play.

 

I have a few more pounds I'd like to lose.  I definitely eat few calories yet for weeks I've hardly lost anything at all.  Why is that? 

 

There are a lot of factors in play.  It would be so nice if our bodies were simple chemical reactions in isolation, where a Calorie (or 4.1868 joules) raised the temperature of 1 km of water in our body 1 degree Celsius.  There are so many variables in play in our bodies.

 

In your case, though, the measurement of body weight you are probably using, includes all the components in your body (i.e., bones, fluids, fat, muscle, skin, internal organs, hair, etc.). Each of these components have different weight for their volume. You could look at additional measurements to help you determine whether your levels of fat, for example, are changing. Circumference measurements are one easy way to do this. Otherwise, you need to get access to much more sophisticated machines.

[Guest]

I learned something crazy the other day. I might be the last to know, but it was interesting anyway. If you look at nutrition labels and think hey look sugar is several ingredients down so it's not too bad. WELL...a lot of companies use multiple forms of sugar that they list separately. What people often do not realize is if you add up all those types of sugar, the sugar content would be pushed closer to the top of the ingredient list (or even at the top). But companies are sneaky! So the latest labeling guidelines require emphasis with the wording "added sugars". Also, if you look at the glycemic index for sweeteners, pure sugar, while high (65 ish) is relatively not that bad (per this concept of glycemic index anything over 50 is high). What is crazy is a lot of the weird sugar forms used regularly are MUCH MUCH higher than sugar. Like 100 or 110!!

The more I learn, the more disgusted I am by the food industry. Capitalism without morals.

[Rosie_0801]

I learned something crazy the other day.  I might be the last to know, but it was interesting anyway.  If you look at nutrition labels and think hey look sugar is several ingredients down so it's not too bad.  WELL...a lot of companies use multiple forms of sugar that they list separately.  What people often do not realize is if you add up all those types of sugar, the sugar content would be pushed closer to the top of the ingredient list (or even at the top).  But companies are sneaky!  So the latest labeling guidelines require emphasis with the wording "added sugars".  Also, if you look at the glycemic index for sweeteners, pure sugar, while high (65 ish) is relatively not that bad (per this concept of glycemic index anything over 50 is high).  What is crazy is a lot of the weird sugar forms used regularly are MUCH MUCH higher than sugar.  Like 100 or 110!! 

 

I like our nutritional labels because they list how much sugar per hundred grams so you can see the percentage. Some of those yogurt style things have more sugar than ice cream!

[SparklyUnicorn]

I like our nutritional labels because they list how much sugar per hundred grams so you can see the percentage. Some of those yogurt style things have more sugar than ice cream!

 

Oh gawd.  Might as well go for a candy bar over eating many yogurt brands.

 

I suppose one could argue there is calcium and stuff, but still.  It's not really a health food after all that sugar.  Except on top of the fact it has the word "yogurt" (which automatically seems to imply health food), people figure hey look "fat free".  Most of the yogurt sold is fat free (or low fat).  So it must be extra healthy....fat free.

 

Reminds me of a tub of cotton candy I saw in the store with the words "fat free" in big letters on the front.  Oh yay. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

There are a lot of factors in play.  It would be so nice if our bodies were simple chemical reactions in isolation, where a Calorie (or 4.1868 joules) raised the temperature of 1 km of water in our body 1 degree Celsius.  There are so many variables in play in our bodies.

 

In your case, though, the measurement of body weight you are probably using, includes all the components in your body (i.e., bones, fluids, fat, muscle, skin, internal organs, hair, etc.). Each of these components have different weight for their volume. You could look at additional measurements to help you determine whether your levels of fat, for example, are changing. Circumference measurements are one easy way to do this. Otherwise, you need to get access to much more sophisticated machines.

 

Uh yeah ok.  But the thing is I lost weight fairly steadily for close to a year, but now suddenly I'm not at all?  I don't get that.  When I set myself to something I am HIGHLY disciplined.  It's been gee 2 months and I think maybe I lost an additional 2 pounds (maybe). 

 

Not a big deal. I'm not going to starve myself to do it because that is pointless, but it is certainly not just a calories in/calories out thing.  No way.

[Sarah CB]

 

 

Overall, this has been one of the best things we've done as a family!  I'm almost nervous to have the official month end, even though we are going to try and continue eating this way.  The kids buying in on the front end was huge.  They just knew if they went out in the month of August, they needed to eat before they went (although I wasn't going to wig out if they ate something "bad") or they could eat healthy when they got home.  They all actually want to continue eating this way, but with a few "cheat" times now and again.  

 

Thanks for posting this! I think I'll get everyone to watch together and then have them help me put together a September meal plan.  

[BarbecueMom]

I think even the recommended portions of food are too much. And I'm sure the vast amount of sugar in everything doesn't help, triggering an appetite beyond what adults should be eating.

 

I rarely eat dinner, but at a relative's house recently, I had a ~3oz. piece of steak with mushrooms and five spears of roasted asparagus. It doesn't look like much, but that was plenty. After four years of eating tiny portions 2-3 times a day due to reflux/IBS, the thought of filling the whole salad plate with a meal, let alone a "dinner plate", turns my stomach. My weight stays steady when I'm not having a flare up (meals go down to 0-1x a day when it's flaring, and I struggle not to lose weight then). I don't really avoid food groups... except sugary treats. Those trigger massive nausea.

 

Several years ago, when I could still eat treats, I wanted to make some Nutella cookies. I found a blog, written in English by a French woman, with a recipe. In the "blah blah blah look at my ad$" before the actual recipe, she said she brought the batch into a nearby doctor's office, where the staff raved over the cookies. She marveled that they polished off the batch.

 

The recipe made EIGHT cookies, each one smaller than an Oreo. How many cookies does a batch of Toll House make? Two dozen, each the size of the rim of a coffee cup? I found it hilarious and silly at the time, but now I think it was just right. Maybe the problem isn't just the sugar in cookies, the problem is the idea of making enough (or craving enough) to own a cookie jar to put the leftovers in.

[wintermom]

Uh yeah ok.  But the thing is I lost weight fairly steadily for close to a year, but now suddenly I'm not at all?  I don't get that.  When I set myself to something I am HIGHLY disciplined.  It's been gee 2 months and I think maybe I lost an additional 2 pounds (maybe). 

 

Not a big deal. I'm not going to starve myself to do it because that is pointless, but it is certainly not just a calories in/calories out thing.  No way.

 

Yup, it's definitely frustrating trying to figure out what exactly is going on in one's own body.  The part of the documentary that made me laugh was how quickly and easily the guy said he lost the weight and returned back to normal. He must be young!  I know that my body takes at least 2 months of steady, new exercise in order for me to see any noticeable changes. The only time I see a quick loss of a couple pounds is right before my period.