Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Juice Is the Root of Our Obesity Problem
Time ^ | Sept. 18, 2015 | Penelope Leach

Posted on 09/20/2015 1:45:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway

WHAT COMMON PRACTICE WILL HORRIFY OUR KIDS SOMEDAY?

It puts babies' overall nutrition at risk

Question Everything IconMany families are trying to reduce their soda intake but manufacturers are fighting back with “no added sugar” formulations and “fruit” drinks. So far, they’re winning.

A drink of diluted fruit juice is the routine afternoon snack of many babies. It’s often the good stuff: pure juice. No nasty preservatives, more vitamin C than necessary and no added sugar. But you don’t have to add sugar to make fruit juice sweet—that’s why babies prefer it to water. And because they prefer it, it becomes habitual.

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: Food; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: juice; obesity; penelopeleach; time
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: Grampa Dave
Sounds like you hacked my computer and stole my diet!

I cook in lard, butter and EVO. No vegetable oils. No canola. No soy products.

I lost 45 lbs and 4 inches of belly fat. I'm 6'2, 175, with a 33 inch waist.

Everyone who does this diet loses weight and dangerous belly fat.

I will have a piece of bread occasionally, but it treat it as a candybar.

41 posted on 09/20/2015 7:11:29 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

In one year, besides the weight loss, I posted above, my waist went from a 44/46 to 32/34. I will be down another waist size in a few weeks. I went from X/large sport and tee shirts to large. My dress shirts are two sizes less in the neck as well as the shirt size going from X/large to large.

Thanks for mentioning the elimination of canola oil. That was another bad food chucked into the trash.

We threw out the so called diet oleo and replaced it with real butter. A stick of butter lasts longer that a 12 oz tub of the so called diet oleo. A pat of real butter satisfies us more than 3 to 4 times more of oleo.


42 posted on 09/20/2015 9:11:52 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Either the ruling class gets new people or we the people get a new ruling clas os. Trump/Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

No, she eats good food, cooks good meals. Just won’t make her son eat because he doesn’t like good food and throws a a dirt. He will eat Mac and cheese once in awhile and that’s it.


43 posted on 09/21/2015 3:42:48 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
This was modern medicine's chance to show me what they can do. They failed. I know as much today as I did June 22. My second CT was yesterday morning and the new gyn onc wants exploratory surgery.

It's not that modern medicine "failed", it's that we are still barely more knowledgeable about the complexities of the human body than we were 100 years ago. Medical research is a slow, slow process, confounded by the fact that researchers want so much to get results that they sometimes read into data more than is there. The better we understand cancer, the better treatments can be devised--unfortunately, we have only minimal understanding of the many diseases called "cancer."

You have a lot of patience for all of those tests. I'm not certain I could do that...

I looked up that "alternative treatment", and have one piece of advice to offer: don't do the enema part of it. Otherwise, I don't think it will hurt you..

Good luck, I hope they can find the original tumor and take care of it for you.

44 posted on 09/21/2015 4:28:15 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TangibleDisgust

“weight loss and weight gain is all about calories.”

No. It isn’t. That is because your body is not a car. Your body regulates things via hormones. How those hormones respond to food depends on the type of food taken in.

There is a reason some people can eat the top off the table and not get fat, and others gain weight just walking past a bakery - and it is NOT exercise.

PS - I’m a life long runner. I get the exercise. When I cut the carbs, I dropped 30 lbs without increasing my exercise. Hmmmm....


45 posted on 09/21/2015 4:34:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

nonsense. the laws of physics are immutable. weight loss and weight gain follow the laws of physics and the levels or cortisol in your system (for example) have little to nothing to do with it. of course, your body can adapt by becoming more efficient and suspending certain metabolic functions, thus altering your BMR to some extent, but ~3500 calories still equates to a pound of mass. as a rule of thumb, this is accurate. there is of course much more to the actual details, but if you view the body as a closed system, then calories in vs. calories out is ALL that matters for weight loss or gain.

your going low carb had an impact on your glycogen reserves and the amount of water stored in your muscles and elsewhere. this is why low carbers lose lots of scale weight quickly, but this levels off. it’s mostly water weight. 1 gallon of water weighs about 8 lbs. the bigger you are, the more water you can retain. this is not “real” weight loss because once you replenish your glycogen reserves, that water comes back. all of these mechanisms are well known and put to good use by wrestlers and body builders and others with an interest in controlling their weight and “leanness” in the short term.

i really wish people would stop posting their personal anecdotes as “proof”, especially when those people have no scientific understanding of what’s going on. for example, i lost 90lbs in about a year while still eating carbs. that personal anecdote doesn’t justify my statements. it’s the scientific method that justifies my statements. while losing that weight, i NEVER once worried about carb intake because that’s irrelevant for weight loss/gain or nutrition. all that matters are healthy fats and protein. those i tracked. carbs mean almost nothing once you understand their impact on water retention and don’t panic about daily swings on the scale.

there is lots of real scientific literature out there (e.g. pubmed). there are lots of ways to accurately figure out your TDEE. all you need to do is count your calories to lose (or gain) weight predictably.


46 posted on 09/25/2015 8:57:49 AM PDT by TangibleDisgust ("To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TangibleDisgust

“the laws of physics are immutable.”

The laws of physics do not apply to biological systems - unless, of course, you think your body burns 100% of the calories taken in, the way a car burns gas.

But that is very obviously NOT the way a body works.

“i really wish people would stop posting their personal anecdotes as “proof”, especially when those people have no scientific understanding of what’s going on.”

I’ve got a degree in Biology. I’m also more than smart enough to realize the government spews nonsense all the time. So do “scientists”.

There is no scientific basis for saying 3500 calories = l lb of weight loss. It ignores almost everything we know about biological systems. Try studying weight loss. It is not anything close to “cut 350 calories a day and lose 3 lbs a month”.


47 posted on 09/25/2015 10:38:41 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

the laws of physics apply to everything. everything we understand about biology can be explained by chemistry. everything we understand about chemistry can be explained by physics. it is the foundational scientific discipline.

i don’t have time to fully educate you about what a “closed system” is, but it’s a fundamental law of the universe that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted to another form. when you sum all of the energy entering a closed system (such as the human body), that’s energy “in”. when you sum all of the energy leaving a closed system, that’s the energy “out”. if these two amounts are not equal, then you have either an energy surplus or an energy deficit. in the case of a surplus, that extra energy is converted and stored by the body as fat and muscle (and other things such as new bone growth, etc.). the point is that this extra energy is converted to matter. that’s why people get heavier. the converse is also true.

this is an irrefutable scientific truth. it is absolutely 100% true. proven again and again and again.

now, it is true that the daily TDEE calculation is a potentially complex one, and even if your calorie intake remains the same (recognizing that there is built in error % for knowing the calorie counts in food), changes in BMR for a variety of reasons can lead you to think your energy balance equation is balanced when it is not, thus causing your weight to change over the long term at faster or slower rates than expected... but that’s not the same as saying the “3500 calories to a pound” general rule is not true.

remember, for our purposes, whether 3400 calories (of carbs + protein) or 3600 calories (of protein + fat) equals a pound of matter isn’t really relevant. the 3500 calorie rule is a rule of thumb. getting hung up on things like the thermic effect of a diet at various ratios of carbs/fats/protein is a case of not seeing the forest through the trees. you could of course account for those effects with a more detailed model, but you reach a point of diminishing returns in trying to get too much detail. for weight loss/gain purposes, the simplified model works fine.


48 posted on 09/25/2015 12:16:20 PM PDT by TangibleDisgust ("To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TangibleDisgust

Blow your snark out your butt. I know what a closed system is. You, apparently, do not. A human is not a closed system.

“the laws of physics apply to everything.”

Not when misapplied. A human is not a car, and your body is not a gas tank. Assuming, of course, you crap sometimes. You body does not use or store all energy coming in. There is a reason some people can eat very little and not lose weight, while others can eat a lot and not gain - and the difference is NOT exercise.


49 posted on 09/25/2015 2:33:25 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

you can ABSOLUTELY model the human body as a closed system. all you need to do is define the boundary of the system such that it is closed w.r.t the energy balance equation and then proceed to account for all energy in and all energy out. i’m not surprised you don’t understand this... as a biologist, you likely never studied physics in any depth, so stop trying to mislead people with your ignorance. sure, everybody has different metabolic rates. if you’re eating very little and not losing weight, it’s because your TDEE is low. you do know what TDEE is, right? although that can be estimated with reasonable error ranges, there will always be people with medical conditions and other factors that affect their metabolism and cause their TDEE calculations to be off. this doesn’t mean the physics is wrong... it simply means that the estimates and assumptions for calculating your their specific TDEE values are off. that’s why it takes time and careful tracking of calories in and calories out over some period of time to close in on a more accurate TDEE number.

the fact that you think the laws of physics only applies to some things and not others puts you squarely in the “nutter” category. i’m done here. go educate yourself. come back and apologize when you realize that you don’t know what you think you know. or not. i don’t really care. just stop deliberately misleading people and telling them that science can’t explain all of this. it can and it does.


50 posted on 09/27/2015 4:27:23 PM PDT by TangibleDisgust ("To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TangibleDisgust

“as a biologist, you likely never studied physics in any depth, so stop trying to mislead people with your ignorance.”

You are an idiot. You don’t know the square root of squat about human bodies or physiology.

“the fact that you think the laws of physics only applies to some things and not others puts you squarely in the “nutter” category”

Physics is fine. Your simplistic approach to physics, backed by your total ignorance about biological systems, sucks. You are EXACTLY the sort of idiot who thinks losing weight is just “calories in vs calories out”. But humans are not cars and we don’t have gas tanks.

Heck, I recently bought a new horse. He gets the same activity as the others, but he eats 50% more without putting on any weight. He isn’t just a gas tank on legs, either. You need to pull your head out of your physics books and look at the world around you. It is an amazing place, and it is not limited by your grossly wrong misapplication of physics!


51 posted on 09/27/2015 4:40:54 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson