Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sugar, not fat, exposed as deadly villain in obesity epidemic [View all]pipi_k
(21,020 posts)82. I think it's a mistake to
take just one thing and make it the all-purpose villain.
Someone above said s/he had photos of schoolkids from the 50s and 60s.
I was a kid back then, and I also remember that there wasn't more than one fat kid per classroom. Some had none at all. Now we're lucky to have a handful of thin kids per classroom.
As a child, and as a teenager, I was very thin. Almost painfully so.
We ate sugary stuff all the time. Candy. Soda. Sweetened cereals. Pudding. Cake. Cookies. Ice cream.
BUT...we got up off our asses and moved.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well, basically "yes" but it was stressed in "Fat Head" that Mc D's is not
snappyturtle
Mar 2013
#81
Note that although "Supersize Me" blamed fat for American's health problems
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2013
#46
You are mistaken. Both weight and body mass index of Americans has been on a long upward trend.
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#4
The problem is the science behind saying this is a problem isn't quite as settled as people believe.
jeff47
Mar 2013
#9
I agree that the problem tends to be overstated, and so is the risk of "bad" cholesterol numbers.
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#11
You may want to google the technical terms so you understand what you're talking about.
jeff47
Mar 2013
#13
That seems more like an indication of how worthless BMI charts are than anything else.
Marr
Mar 2013
#17
Potentially. The point is we don't know because there has not been sufficient study.
jeff47
Mar 2013
#18
The legend didn't come through. Thanks for pointing that out. Link to source page...
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#53
I would guess that an increase in use of HFCS occurred, or maybe people reduced cocaine consumption
slackmaster
Mar 2013
#59
We have medical deniers on the left, like the climate deniers on the right...
Generation_Why
Mar 2013
#14
The problem is acting as if the study is complete as soon as the hypothesis has been made.
jeff47
Mar 2013
#32
I was going to say -- that kind of cooking/eating went along well with farm labor.
Arugula Latte
Mar 2013
#21
There seems to be a sentiment in Middle America that a "good" restaurant is one where
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2013
#64
"...not a case of eradicating sugar... just getting it down to LEVELS that are not toxic"
Silent3
Mar 2013
#44
The ones that creep me out are "fat-free sour cream" and "fat-free whipping cream"
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2013
#74
Sugar is part of the problem. Carbs and Wheat (the super carb) are very much to blame
theophilus
Mar 2013
#83