NationStates

I think the "big pharma is evil" stems from selling dietary products which can cause harm to your health and they don't work in the long run. Because being morbid obese can only be cured by lifestyle changes. No crash diet will do that.
It can be easier to maintain a diet when you have group therapy and friends/ family who support you.

It can help to buy only saucer plates and small glasses.
Eat 1 sandwich, do something else and if you are still hungry after 20 minutes, eat another.
Eat salads, nuts, vegetables, seaweed, but again only small portions. Try to lock up snacks/ sweets. If you are on the couch and the bag of crisps is next to you, chances are it will be empty before long. If you have to walk to the cupboard, fill a small bowl ( 1 hand of crisps), seal the bag, put it back in the cupboard, grab your bowl
Take it to the couch, eat it there. Then , if you still want more, repeat. It helps you get some extra exercise and will help eat less.

Go for walks, take a dog, make bets/ deals with friends to loose x pounds per month, start cooking yourself with products from your own garden. Use less salt, drink water, tea or coffee without sugar.

Takso wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
As long as an equal tax is put on artificial sweeteners like aspartame. I'd much rather be fat than have cancer.

That is categorically false. Aspartame is not considered a threat to human health and actually could be used to fight the obesity epidemic.

Wikipedia article on Aspartame wrote:The safety of aspartame has been studied since its discovery and is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries, including the United States Food and Drug Administration, UK Food Standards Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada, and Australia-New Zealand.

As of 2017, reviews of clinical trials showed that using aspartame (or other non-nutritive sweeteners) in place of sugar reduces calorie intake and body weight in adults and children.

A 2017 review of metabolic effects by consuming aspartame found that it did not affect blood glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, triglycerides, calorie intake, or body weight, while high-density lipoprotein levels were higher.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame ... th_effects

As for the cancer, 'Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[7][8][10][28][29] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[30] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[31] The EFSA and FDA state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[6][32]'

The idea it causes cancer seems to stem from an article from the Environmental Health Perspective, some kind of medical peer-reviewed journal. Although I couldn't find anything on their legitimacy, one of their most recent articles appears to be some kind of fear-mongering in which a mixture of unnamed 'environmental chemicals' and socioeconomics can lead to autism. Which is bullshit, as Autism develops in the womb.

By definition, overweight means being heavier than is healthy, and therefore it is unhealthy. But someone being "heavy" does not mean that they are overweight, and I do believe the modern definition of overweight is far too broad.

Takso wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
As long as an equal tax is put on artificial sweeteners like aspartame. I'd much rather be fat than have cancer.

That is categorically false. Aspartame is not considered a threat to human health and actually could be used to fight the obesity epidemic.

Wikipedia article on Aspartame wrote:The safety of aspartame has been studied since its discovery and is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries, including the United States Food and Drug Administration, UK Food Standards Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada, and Australia-New Zealand.

As of 2017, reviews of clinical trials showed that using aspartame (or other non-nutritive sweeteners) in place of sugar reduces calorie intake and body weight in adults and children.

A 2017 review of metabolic effects by consuming aspartame found that it did not affect blood glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, triglycerides, calorie intake, or body weight, while high-density lipoprotein levels were higher.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame ... th_effects

Hammer Britannia wrote:As for the cancer, 'Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[7][8][10][28][29] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[30] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[31] The EFSA and FDA state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[6][32]'

The idea it causes cancer seems to stem from an article from the Environmental Health Perspective, some kind of medical peer-reviewed journal. Although I couldn't find anything on their legitimacy, one of their most recent articles appears to be some kind of fear-mongering in which a mixture of unnamed 'environmental chemicals' and socioeconomics can lead to autism. Which is bullshit, as Autism develops in the womb.

Very interesting! I may still avoid it more out of habit, but that's good to know anyway.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Takso wrote:
That is categorically false. Aspartame is not considered a threat to human health and actually could be used to fight the obesity epidemic.



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame ... th_effects

Hammer Britannia wrote:As for the cancer, 'Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[7][8][10][28][29] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[30] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[31] The EFSA and FDA state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[6][32]'

The idea it causes cancer seems to stem from an article from the Environmental Health Perspective, some kind of medical peer-reviewed journal. Although I couldn't find anything on their legitimacy, one of their most recent articles appears to be some kind of fear-mongering in which a mixture of unnamed 'environmental chemicals' and socioeconomics can lead to autism. Which is bullshit, as Autism develops in the womb.

Very interesting! I may still avoid it more out of habit, but that's good to know anyway.

It's refreshing to see someone change their perspective based on discovering new evidence. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Nothing wrong with avoiding aspartame.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Takso wrote:Unhealthy food should be taxed for the sake of public health, sugary beverages at 10-20%

As long as an equal tax is put on artificial sweeteners like aspartame. I'd much rather be fat than have cancer.

Unless you are diabetic, then the aspartame is much better for you than sugar.

Takso wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:



Very interesting! I may still avoid it more out of habit, but that's good to know anyway.

It's refreshing to see someone change their perspective based on discovering new evidence. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Nothing wrong with avoiding aspartame.

I don't eat/ drink sweeteners like aspartame, stevia or sucralose, I really don't like the taste.

And it doesn't work for weight loss in the long term

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929

Tl;dr the body expects calories when there is a sweet taste, so overtime sweet foods are no longer associated with calories, and the body will not signal it is satiated, so you eat more.

A little bit of meat on the bones isn't dangerous in my opinion. Obesity is however.

Thepeopl wrote:

Takso wrote:
It's refreshing to see someone change their perspective based on discovering new evidence. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Nothing wrong with avoiding aspartame.

I don't eat/ drink sweeteners like aspartame, stevia or sucralose, I really don't like the taste.

And it doesn't work for weight loss in the long term

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929

Tl;dr the body expects calories when there is a sweet taste, so overtime sweet foods are no longer associated with calories, and the body will not signal it is satiated, so you eat more.

From that analysis:
"Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk. Further research is needed to fully characterize the long-term risks and benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners."

Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

"The take-home message is artificially sweetened drinks aren’t a silver bullet for weight loss. But if you drink a lot of sugary drinks and think a diet version might help you cut down on sugar, that’s a good step and is very unlikely to do you any harm."

"Despite the theories, the European Food Safety Authority have ruled that artificial sweeteners in food and drink pose no threat to our health if consumed within daily allowances. For aspartame, this is equivalent to 15 cans of diet coke. That’s a stark contrast to what we know about the harms of having too much sugar."

Source: Cancer Research UK
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... ight-loss/

EDIT: That's 15 cans daily. Way higher than what would be okay for alternatives. Meaning, the diet coke option is not harmful and in fact the use of aspartame is safe.

Takso wrote:

Thepeopl wrote:I don't eat/ drink sweeteners like aspartame, stevia or sucralose, I really don't like the taste.

And it doesn't work for weight loss in the long term

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929

Tl;dr the body expects calories when there is a sweet taste, so overtime sweet foods are no longer associated with calories, and the body will not signal it is satiated, so you eat more.

From that analysis:
"Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk. Further research is needed to fully characterize the long-term risks and benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners."

Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

"The take-home message is artificially sweetened drinks aren’t a silver bullet for weight loss. But if you drink a lot of sugary drinks and think a diet version might help you cut down on sugar, that’s a good step and is very unlikely to do you any harm."

"Despite the theories, the European Food Safety Authority have ruled that artificial sweeteners in food and drink pose no threat to our health if consumed within daily allowances. For aspartame, this is equivalent to 15 cans of diet coke. That’s a stark contrast to what we know about the harms of having too much sugar."

Source: Cancer Research UK
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... ight-loss/

EDIT: That's 15 cans daily. Way higher than what would be okay for alternatives. Meaning, the diet coke option is not harmful and in fact the use of aspartame is safe.

The point of the article is: by eating/drinking light products, people are going to eat/ drink more. Because the body isn't getting as much calories as it is expecting.

And because people think, see this isn't fattening so I can eat/ drink more.

Same as roads which are perceived as dangerous, are actually safer, because people will drive more carefully there.

Thepeopl wrote:

Takso wrote:
From that analysis:
"Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk. Further research is needed to fully characterize the long-term risks and benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners."

Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

"The take-home message is artificially sweetened drinks aren’t a silver bullet for weight loss. But if you drink a lot of sugary drinks and think a diet version might help you cut down on sugar, that’s a good step and is very unlikely to do you any harm."

"Despite the theories, the European Food Safety Authority have ruled that artificial sweeteners in food and drink pose no threat to our health if consumed within daily allowances. For aspartame, this is equivalent to 15 cans of diet coke. That’s a stark contrast to what we know about the harms of having too much sugar."

Source: Cancer Research UK
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... ight-loss/

EDIT: That's 15 cans daily. Way higher than what would be okay for alternatives. Meaning, the diet coke option is not harmful and in fact the use of aspartame is safe.

The point of the article is: by eating/drinking light products, people are going to eat/ drink more. Because the body isn't getting as much calories as it is expecting.

And because people think, see this isn't fattening so I can eat/ drink more.

Same as roads which are perceived as dangerous, are actually safer, because people will drive more carefully there.

As long as they drink within the daily allowance, it's fine and is actually better than drinking actual sugar. That's my point.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Is this an American joke that I'm too European to understand? The NHS could do with getting some cheaper medication but other than that I don't understand why "bIG pHaRma" is such a boogyman.

Scapegoatism

tl;dr: "Healthcare is expensive in the states for reasons beyond my comprehention, therefore it's evil and cannot be trusted."

It's essentially anti-science. It's the reason why we have anti-vaxxers, homoeopathy nuts, and people who believe smoking is A-OK

Funny you should mention that. The Chinese are such a high-IQ nationality that they dominate over the west in education. They still smoke like crazy. Almost as if it's the medical profession's own fault that no one believes them anymore.

Science is not just science. Science that's been hijacked by special interests deserves much; if not most; of the skepticism it gets.

Ideally we should return to science, but first step first is to purge it of all special-interest influence. If they can't do it, and people continue not to believe them, it's their own damn fault.

That said, I already addressed in the OP why special interests are no excuse for anti-vax beliefs in particular.

Yes. This "body positive" nonsense is just causing early death. Don't get me wrong, being underweight is also unhealthy. If you're overweight, drop the McDonalds' and hit the gym. If you're underweight, pick up the McDonalds.

Deltia- wrote:Yes. This "body positive" nonsense is just causing early death. Don't get me wrong, being underweight is also unhealthy. If you're overweight, drop the McDonalds' and hit the gym. If you're underweight, pick up the McDonalds.

I think changing your diet is a lot more important than hitting the gym, not that exercise doesn't help. I don't think anyone should pick up fast food.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Scapegoatism

tl;dr: "Healthcare is expensive in the states for reasons beyond my comprehention, therefore it's evil and cannot be trusted."

It's essentially anti-science. It's the reason why we have anti-vaxxers, homoeopathy nuts, and people who believe smoking is A-OK

Makes sense :/

Fun story. A while back the FDA, a government agency that regulates food and medications announced homeopathic products would have to be sold with a label stating there's no actual evidence that they work. A good 90% of the response to this on many social media sites was soccer moms shrieking that the government had been paid off by ebil corporations who want to poison our kids.

We've reached the equivalent of peak anti-vaxx levels now, if people are unironically asking if being a fatass is unhealthy.
Yeah yeah, keep being body-positive, those Whoppers and 15 pounds of Hershey bars in your purse will put you in the ground in about five years, but we need to promote boy positivity!.

Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

Except for explosive diarrhoea.

Deltia- wrote:If you're underweight, pick up the McDonalds.

No.
Eating lots of junk food to increase one's own mass is a great way to stress kidneys, liver, and bowels. If you're underweight, eat healthy, but in greater amount... and anyway ALWAYS ASK A PROFESSIONAL FFS.

Risottia wrote:

Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

Except for explosive diarrhoea.

That will help lose some weight.

Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

And 16 cans?

Do you mean by fat mass or muscle mass? Cause there's a big difference.

Technically most of the strongest men in the world are overweight or obese if we're going strictly by the BMI, so which one we talkin' about?

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

And 16 cans?

You really shouldn't be drinking sixteen cans of anything, even water to an extent.

Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.

Yes, exactly my point."because of aspartame you can drink 15 cans" this means 4.95 litres per day. Way too much fluid for any human being.

And don't forget that aspartame is also in a lot of solid foods.
So ppl will have heard: I can drink 15 cans per day, and will ignore the fact that 15 cans of liquid is not healthy.
And they will eat additional aspartame/ sorbitol/ stevia etc. Which they won't add to the maximum dose.

Imperium of Dragonia wrote:We've reached the equivalent of peak anti-vaxx levels now, if people are unironically asking if being a fatass is unhealthy.
Yeah yeah, keep being body-positive, those Whoppers and 15 pounds of Hershey bars in your purse will put you in the ground in about five years, but we need to promote boy positivity!.

There's a difference between being overweight and a "fatass."

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Scapegoatism

tl;dr: "Healthcare is expensive in the states for reasons beyond my comprehention, therefore it's evil and cannot be trusted."

It's essentially anti-science. It's the reason why we have anti-vaxxers, homoeopathy nuts, and people who believe smoking is A-OK

Funny you should mention that. The Chinese are such a high-IQ nationality that they dominate over the west in education. They still smoke like crazy. Almost as if it's the medical profession's own fault that no one believes them anymore.

Science is not just science. Science that's been hijacked by special interests deserves much; if not most; of the skepticism it gets.

Ideally we should return to science, but first step first is to purge it of all special-interest influence. If they can't do it, and people continue not to believe them, it's their own damn fault.

That said, I already addressed in the OP why special interests are no excuse for anti-vax beliefs in particular.

And lung cancer rates don’t track smoking rates in the general population very well.