What Has Decades of Dieting Accomplished?

What did they use as an artificial sweetener in those days?

Saccharin (discovered around 1880) had been used as a fake sugar for many years by then, although I don't know how prevalent it was. Aspartame wasn't discovered until 1965, and I think other artificial sweeteners are even more recent.

Yes it is Saccharin (often sold under brand name "Sweet n Low"). It became very popular in the sixties - and like aspartame has been embroiled in controversy.

In the late seventies products containing saccharin were carrying cancer warnings. Wikipedia has a good article on it.

There was also the ciclamate controversy - then it wasn't saccharin that was gonna kill you, it was the ciclamate. Then none were going to kill you, just aspartame. Now, just aspartame and Splenda. Or all of them. Or sugar. Or high-fructose corn syrup. Or honey. Or breathing.

Jan - ha! ain't that the truth!

With all that honey in my system, it is amazing I am still alive. ;-)

Glucose dosen't kill people- Gluttony kills people

Not much has changed.

The reason why Low Fat Low Calorie High carb diets are still popular is because it's easier to make a 'product' for that diet!

Just look at Nestle buying Jenny Craig.

Those corporate philosophies fit very well together.

Mia, while gluttony does kill pill, the processed foods that make up the majority of foods available right now can kill a lot of people who aren't gluttons, if they eat them in moderate amounts. Foods have been stripped of all nutrients and fiber and have had amounts of sugar added that wouldn't even be found in a piece of sugar cane, and then trans fats, which are also not found in nature, in large amounts.

people* not pill.

This has been going on for years and it still goes on today. Many major food importation companies and food processors have gotten together and tried to advertise their products as a weight loss solution. One diet from 1950s was the banana and milk diet. Articles and books were written on how these two ingredients aid in a person's weight loss.

In fact the whole stratgey of the marketing campaign was to get more people to purchase bananas and milk. This type of marketing still goes on today. I won't mention them here, I'm sure everybody has heard of certain types of soup diets or a diet is centered around a type of fruit. Its all designed to make you want to pick up that product at the supermarket. Sadly the marketing is highly effective.

There are no miracle pills, or foods, just habitual changes that will effect a change in weight.

I'd totally go for a banana and milk diet. If I could, I'd eat those 2 all day. Mmmm serotonin...

On a serious note, I think you make an excellent point, Paul. I believe it is still going on on tabloids and magazines that promote a new diet every week, and each of these diets emphasizes a product or food. Well-placed advertisement.

Well, all that Banana-milk diet, the soup diet, and all in such.

But I can tell you the facts:

Too much added sugar is bad, but artificial sweeteners are in fact far worse. Use natural sweeteners like Stevia, Honey, and some syrups.

Trans fats are far worse than saturated fats. They just do one thing, they distroy you. Good thing that McDonalds are finally talking about getting rid of trans fats...this time they are serious. Yay! And KFC is also eliminating trans fats from the food. Another thing it's not necessary, because it doesn't effect the taste. But without trans fats, doughnuts are still the worst food to eat, simply because of trans fats and sugar.

And today, it's the vegetarian diet's latest fad. Sure you will lose weight, cause it's low caloric need. Peta and even some health experts side with vegan diets. However, to me, it's unhealthy. Vegan diets derive you of B12 vitamins, iron, zinc, vitamin D, and some forms of vitamin A. I know that I am appalled by the torture of animals in factory farms, but the chemistrial research suggests that humans indeed need to put meat in the diet, spacifically a lot of fish, a moderate amount of pultery and white meat, and a few amounts of red meat. I've seen during the last 15 years that Bob Barker had health problems (isometric strokes and thyroid problems). If vegetarians were called healthy, than why is Bob Barker suffering from strokes and a prostate problem? Bob needs to know that meat plays a crucial part in the diet. So, vegetarian diets, turns out, that it's another gimmick diet that does more harm than good.

I say, the perfect diet is: everything in moderation except for the partially hydrogenated oils. That's all I have to say.

"But without trans fats, doughnuts are still the worst food to eat, simply because of trans fats and sugar."

What?

Perhaps my word choice was lacking and desracted from the point...it was a play on the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" meaning that inanimate things, like food or guns, don't kill, poor choices however do.
In otherwords---What i meant was that it dosen't matter if you eat things with artificial sweeteners or with real sugar if you over do it- you're screwed.

to "A Different Nic"

About the "But without trans fats, doughnuts are still the worst food to eat simply because of trans fats and sugar".

I have meant to say, Doughnuts are the worst foods to eat because of empty fats, sugar, and no nutritional value.

But you can eat these in moderation, unlike it's trans-fatty counterpart.

do these comments fit the BFL diet programs EAS stuff prelevant at this time

They are chubby but cute!

What we know now as the "facts" on food and artificial sweeteners are bound to evolve and change. Through all of this, though, I think the most dieting has done for us is made us investigate what works, what doesn't, and what is dangerous. The formula always seems to be the same - eat healthy and watch your calorie/fat intake and make exercise a part of your life - no matter what discoveries are made.

And I have to pull this out: James, using Bob Barker, a 100 year old TV host, as your example of the evils of a vegetarian diet may not be the best example. He could have been the healthiest, most moderate eater anyone has known but you can't deny the role of genetics in the role of nutrition as well. Sometimes, no matter what you do, your body has its own destiny.

Mia, but this is actually exactly like the gun issue: we have a limited freedom of choice. I can choose not to kill anybody with a gun, but I can't choose whether they kill me. When health information is extremely confusing and in many poorer areas the only foods available are loaded with trans fats and sugers, what choice do people have really, if the only food they can afford is crap?

Also, people who eat for emotional reasons are not really being gluttons any more than an alcoholic is being thirsty. So between those two, how many people who are fat are fat simply from stuffing their faces without any sort of emotional problem behind it?

Ok got it...I was confused.

with all the genaric brands of food oout there i have a hard time believing that the only kind of food people can afford is crap. Produce is not expensive so long ass you purchase what is in season. Also if your eating because you are emotionally distrested then that is a completly different problem. and true you don't have a choice wether or not someone shoots you but you do have a choice as to which foods you're putting down your throat.

Mia there is no produce in the bodegas and grocery shops in the poor areas. I think we're talking 2 different levels of poor here... Yes, it is not an excuse for the people eating fast food daily and spending hundreds on candy bars. But sadly it is an excuse for the really poor people. They had a study that showed that although fat, the poor Americans were as lacking in nutrients as the people starving in the developing world.

Exactly right. Fresh produce is not only expensive to buy, it requires planning to use and proper storage to maintain freshness. And, a garden is not a possibility for most people, reguardless of their income.

Recently I was in a "poor" section of town for my daughter's volleyball tourament and went to a grocery store for some food for lunch. (I have found that a grocery store is the best place for food on the run.) The selection was mostly proccessed and the produce was basic with no organic options. Needless to say, there was no sushi bar, like at my neighborhood grocery stores. There is a big difference in available nutrition.

The stigma of obesity is also the stigma of povery and every thing that goes along with the sigma of poverty- laziness, stupidity, mental illness. In today's society there is a link, for a variety of related and unrelated causes, between weight and social economic status. The link with obesity is negative.

Yes, and that is the same thing I believe in most countries. I live in a lower-middle class area myself, and although I can afford to drive to a proper grocery store, if I try to walk around here to get some vegetables, I can find some tomatoes and a few apples... that is it. The entire "produce section" of my neighborhood. And they are ridiculously overpriced too. Imagine the "selection" available at really poor areas.

Fancy fruit not having added sugar being called a 'diet' product!

What has decades of dieting done for us?

Created multi-billion dollar diet companies that succeed on the failures of those that struggle.

i have tried all these diets, i cant believe i fell for the advertising.