|
2005/03/21, 12:04 AM
I had a slight conversation with my sister-in-law today. She was harping on me about how going to the gym 5 times per week is so bad for me (30 minutes 3x and a 20 minute run 2x ???). All this while she finished 2 plates of potatoes and pork (oh, sour cream is low fat with 20 calories less), along with 3 (!) slices of "low fat" banana cream pie. And a Pepsi. A few hours before, she had been at a buffet. Did I mention she is over 300lbs and has joined/quit weight watchers and curves at least 10 times?
What on earth is the reason for so much mass misinformation about how to stay healthy? I really don't understand why people find it so hard to just restrain themselves and do what's good for their body! You only have one body, take care of it!
Please don't take this as a "I hate fat people" comment because it really isn't. I just don't understand why people abuse themselves to this point and mock those who don't.
|
|
|
|
2005/03/21, 05:05 AM
This is a part psychology and a part big business/lobbyist issue....
people love to lie to themselves and to turn a blind eye to whatever is their weakness....just 1 candy.....it's 50% fat free....only 2g of fat per serving(with 10 servings in a bag)....etc....
the other is the way the nutrition information is labeled....especially on big packages....it's per serving....and most people don't bother to consider that if they eat a whole bag with 10+ servings...it's not 200 calories.....also 97% fat free sounds a lot better than 3% fat....so the USDA allows companies a lot of room to wiggle around certain bad information....things are measured by weight...if something is 0.5g or less you can round it to 0...per serving...so if it's 0.5g trans fat per serving in 10 serving total package....it's still rounded down to 0....yet on the ingredients you can still clearly see hydrogentaed/partially hyndrogenated oils......however the lobbyists are very powerful and just like other industries control our politicians....it really must take something very very outrageous for politicians to step in....a public outcry....
|
|
2005/03/21, 10:06 AM
============
if something is 0.5g or less you can round it to 0...per serving...so if it's 0.5g trans fat per serving in 10 serving total package....it's still rounded down to 0....yet on the ingredients you can still clearly see hydrogentaed/partially hyndrogenated oils......
============
This drives me nuts. Why can they lie right on the labels like that and get away with it? Just another example of the food industry putting their dollars before the consumers health.
--------------
Lift. Eat. Rest. Gain.
~Brad~
|
|
2005/03/21, 02:26 PM
Wow Menace, I didn't know that they could label 0.5g as 0g! Sure, it may not be a huge dealto most, but the implications of it is that it is an outright lie!
I think the biggest problem with obesity is portion control. Of course, I didn't scientifically research that, but I've seen it over and over again (I previously worked in a fast food Chinese restaurant). Truly amazing. People would eat 5000 calorie meals if it was only $1.99 more.
|
|
2005/03/22, 06:15 AM
from a few recent experiments:
#1 people eat more if given a larger plate
#2 people eat more of food when given a larger variety of food(rather than 1 type of food)
usually in math 0.5 can be rounded up or down...so technically the food industry can do it....however....if a package has 10 servings....that 5 grams total of trans fat.....it's 0.5g per serving....so the total amount of trans fat can be quite high....in a package of crackers/cookies/peanut butter(check the back of the ingredients because many have trans fats)
I think generally speaking the whole food labeling system needs a restructuring...the per serving method is very misleading...and it applies to almost no1....because everyone's caloric intake is different.....so 'per serving' implies that that's a serving for an avg person....but what's an avg person?.....I think the food industry should be forced to label the nutritional information by total content in a package....as well as ingredient list as % of otal calories not weight....
so far the companies label ingredients by weight not by their caloric % of the whole...so something can make a high portion of calories in a food yet be fairly light in terms of weight...hence misleading...etc....
|
|
2005/03/25, 03:42 PM
how about if they have to list both?? per serving & for the whole thing??
you can't blame the companies for the per serving - I believe that is set - people really need to read what they are eating
--------------
Reddy
All people smile in the same language
|
|
2005/03/26, 07:34 AM
right...how people need and should be but never are....if this was how people behaved 2/3 people in US wouldn't be overweight....people are either to busy/ignorant/indifferent to calculate all this....companies need to list both....
|
|
2005/03/26, 11:25 AM
Some people just don't understand how to read thoes labels either. Some just look at the total amount of fat it has. If it has 0 grams of fat, it's good. (at least to them) Even if it has no fat but very high sugar, it's alright. Some people think that the fat calories are the only calories that are getting them fat just because they are fat calories.
DX
|
|
2005/03/27, 03:08 AM
my main concerns are
FAT....esp TRANS
CARBS...ie sugar
SODIUM....most products like canned soups, tuna, etc....have very high sodium....day's worth in a little can...
|
|
2005/03/28, 12:42 PM
Marblez - I feel for your sis-in-law.
Low self esteme is a killer. I don't know if it's strictly missinformation that guided her comments or simply an inner dissatisfaction that she can't seem to keep on track herself.
Eating badly is my biggest weakness. I beat myself up mentally everytime I "fall off the wagon" and that usually becomes my excuse to binge... Although I've always openly admired individuals who make the effort to become more fit, I will admit to the occasional missguided negative thought towards others who seem to have it easier than myself. The difference for me is that I then give my head a shake, kick my own butt and get back on track. :)
If you sis-in-law is currently choosing to turn a blind eye to health then you need to either turn a blind deaf ear to her comments or figure out some sneaky way to motivate her! Either way, I would bet dimes to dollars she's more jealous of your commitment and unhappy with herself than anything else.
Just my 2-bits.
|
