Look, I love McDonald's now and then, and when I feel like having a chocolate shake I don't care how much sugar is in it (for the moment - my life is filled with regrets, lol).
But it is very strange to me that they sponsor dieticians' conferences. What do they hope to accomplish? Do they just want to be seen as somewhat concerned about health, even when their food isn't particularly healthful? This is probably a dumb question, but I don't get their angle.
Yes, fruit has sugar. That is totally true. It all has micronutrient content, fiber, etc.
No one has ever gotten fat eating fruit. If you're down to the last few vanity pounds, reducing fruit may help you get leaner. But it's not going to make you fat.
That being said, it's possible to have an unhealthy psychological relationship with any food. But I doubt it's very common to be addicted to apples.
ETA: Not an RD or a health care professional. The above post is just my layman's opinion.
I "liked" this and simultaneously "HUH"ed this because I didn't know anyone actually thinks fruit is bad. I could eat nothing but fruit all day for the rest of my life.
So here's the real question- if RD conferences are being sponsored by McD's and the like, and the gov't is beholden to corn / wheat industry who do we trust when it comes to food?
Sadly, I think the answer is often no one. Professors beat it into our heads in grad school to always look at sources of funding when reading research articles, attending conferences, etc. If that company has some kind of related product to sell (even if only indirectly related to what you're reading) know that there's VERY likely an agenda. Reader beware. I'm assuming many RDs also think like this & don't choose to attend this conference for that very reason.
For a good book on this, read Salt, Sugar, Fat. It's fascinating!
My beef (heh) with fruit is just that I've never felt full after eating it. I could put down a lb of strawberries and still be starving.
This is true. Fruit by itself is not very satiating. That doesn't mean that it's "just sugar" and has no other redeeming qualities.
Oh I never said it had no redeeming qualities! I'm a fatty fat though and my ultimate goals are 1. keep my carbs down and 2. Not feel hungry to lose weight. Sadly, fruit doesn't really make the cut for either of those.
I eat berries and such, but apples and bananas etc blow my carbs up for the day.
Anyway, I don't think fruit is "bad" at all but it's not doing my thighs any favors either.
This is true. Fruit by itself is not very satiating. That doesn't mean that it's "just sugar" and has no other redeeming qualities.
Oh I never said it had no redeeming qualities! I'm a fatty fat though and my ultimate goals are 1. keep my carbs down and 2. Not feel hungry to lose weight. Sadly, fruit doesn't really make the cut for either of those.
I eat berries and such, but apples and bananas etc blow my carbs up for the day.
Anyway, I don't think fruit is "bad" at all but it's not doing my thighs any favors either.
Right and I completely understand that eating a lot of fruit is not right for you and your goals at this point. Totally get it. But do you see how saying
Sugar from fruit is still sugar. Your body doesn't know the difference.
reads like you think fruit = sugar and sugar is bad, therefore fruit is bad?
Anyways, I'm really not trying to pick on you. I just think vilifying fruit can indirectly cause people trying to make healthier choices to just throw their hands in the air and give up because "all the things are bad." Ya know?
Sadly, I think the answer is often no one. Professors beat it into our heads in grad school to always look at sources of funding when reading research articles, attending conferences, etc. If that company has some kind of related product to sell (even if only indirectly related to what you're reading) know that there's VERY likely an agenda. Reader beware. I'm assuming many RDs also think like this & don't choose to attend this conference for that very reason.
For a good book on this, read Salt, Sugar, Fat. It's fascinating!
What surprised me about the article was that the author said most attendees didn't know who the sponsors were, and were surprised by the answer. I would assume you'd go into something like that taking everything with a grain of salt, wouldn't you?
You said it yourself, attendees didn't know who the sponsors were. So no, if you think someone is there speaking in their professional capacity then you might not take it with a grain of salt. Again, it goes back to the federal government having to legislate the drug companies. They were paying doctors to use their influence as speakers to push their drugs. Now some people might know that it was just an advertising pitch, but others would not.
Oh I never said it had no redeeming qualities! I'm a fatty fat though and my ultimate goals are 1. keep my carbs down and 2. Not feel hungry to lose weight. Sadly, fruit doesn't really make the cut for either of those.
I eat berries and such, but apples and bananas etc blow my carbs up for the day.
Anyway, I don't think fruit is "bad" at all but it's not doing my thighs any favors either.
Right and I completely understand that eating a lot of fruit is not right for you and your goals at this point. Totally get it. But do you see how saying
Sugar from fruit is still sugar. Your body doesn't know the difference.
reads like you think fruit = sugar and sugar is bad, therefore fruit is bad?
Anyways, I'm really not trying to pick on you. I just think vilifying fruit can indirectly cause people trying to make healthier choices to just throw their hands in the air and give up because "all the things are bad." Ya know?
Sure. And I don't think you are trying to pick on me. All good.
You said it yourself, attendees didn't know who the sponsors were. So no, if you think someone is there speaking in their professional capacity then you might not take it with a grain of salt. Again, it goes back to the federal government having to legislate the drug companies. They were paying doctors to use their influence as speakers to push their drugs. Now some people might know that it was just an advertising pitch, but others would not.
I'm saying, as Violet indicated above, wouldn't you go into something like this wondering where the funding was coming from? I certainly don't think it's a good idea to have junk-food sponsorship for a nutritional conference; I'm just wondering, if it's this widespread that a national organization is doing it this blatantly, how you could NOT know.
Not until you sat your ass down at the actual conference or attended a talk.
Cherries: 1 cherry has 5 calories, and 0.4 grams of fructose. You would have to eat 48 cherries to get to 240 calories, but more importantly, you’d have to eat 89 cherries to get the same dose of fructose as a 20 oz. soda.
If I ate 89 cherries, I would lose about seven pounds because I would be shitting my brains out. New diet plan?
Cherries: 1 cherry has 5 calories, and 0.4 grams of fructose. You would have to eat 48 cherries to get to 240 calories, but more importantly, you’d have to eat 89 cherries to get the same dose of fructose as a 20 oz. soda.
If I ate 89 cherries, I would lose about seven pounds because I would be shitting my brains out. New diet plan?
Genius!
Speaking of that list, I like bananas, but the idea of eating five of them in a sitting is tickling my gag reflex.