Katie Couric's Fed Up
geotrice
Posts: 274 Member
I just watched Fed Up. It is streaming on Netflix. The documentary seems to discount CICO. Instead it advocates sugar avoidance. While I didn't disagree with avoiding sugar, as I have found when I do, I get to consume more food and fewer calories all at the same time. It did rub me the wrong way when it said calorie counting is too difficult. It did focus on childhood obesity however. It did answer one question that I have had and that is, "Why isn't there a % Daily Value for Sugar on Nutrition Facts labels?" Maybe MyFitnessPal needs find a way to get into schools.
0
Replies
-
I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.0
-
Most documentaries like this are simply 1 hour 30 minute long advertisements.0
-
sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.0
-
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
Not tracking intake leads to overeating. Sugar is not the cause.
I personally love broccoli, and eat a ton of it. Ice cream, donuts, ect are a bigger problem if someone is not mindful of their consumption, because they can be calorically dense. It's easier to eat multiple servings and exceed your maintenance calories on top of your normal intake. That's where practicing moderation, reading labels, and fitting those items into your intake comes in.0 -
All documentaries are going to have weak points, bias (even though the goal of a good documentary is to not have bias), and an agenda. I still think it's an interesting watch. Diet advice aside, it does touch on two items that I found interesting and they are the foods being marketed and served to children who have less control over their food options than an adult and a lack of transparency in nutritional information.0
-
missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
CICO is science. You need to eat less than you burn to lose.
Guilt from eating or lack of moderation is a relationship with food that needs to be repaired, either through self reflection, or conversations with a professional.
0 -
-
herrspoons wrote: »loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
Not really. There's no point taking an absolute approach - someone may enjoy a Snickers and be able to fit it into their macros whilst making the rest of their balance from more traditionally nutritious food.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
This is where moderation comes into play. Agree with all of the above.
0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
Saying that a food is problematic because it causes feelings of guilt is circular reasoning. Instead of saying "You shouldn't eat that because you will feel guilty," we should be questioning whether or not guilt is a useful emotion to associate with food choices.
Even if guilt was a useful emotion to associate with food (which I argue it isn't), considering a food choice in a vacuum is silly. Without knowing anything about someone's activity level, goals, health history, and other food choices for the day, how could I possibly know that choosing the Snickers is "wrong"?0 -
I think the evidence would suggest that not eating fewer calories than you burn, rather than the counting of those calories per se, is why people fail.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »CICO is science. You need to eat less than you burn to lose.
Guilt from eating or lack of moderation is a relationship with food that needs to be repaired, either through self reflection, or conversations with a professional.
CICO is math, not science.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think the evidence would suggest that not eating fewer calories than you burn, rather than the counting of those calories per se, is why people fail.
Doesn't really change anything. Calorie counting is a tool to achieve correct calorie intake/burn - most people who use it fail - therefore the tool is plausibly "too difficult" to succeed with.
0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »CICO is science. You need to eat less than you burn to lose.
Guilt from eating or lack of moderation is a relationship with food that needs to be repaired, either through self reflection, or conversations with a professional.
CICO is math, not science.
What we know about how our body uses energy is based on science.
0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »CICO is science. You need to eat less than you burn to lose.
Guilt from eating or lack of moderation is a relationship with food that needs to be repaired, either through self reflection, or conversations with a professional.
CICO is math, not science.janejellyroll wrote: »loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »CICO is science. You need to eat less than you burn to lose.
Guilt from eating or lack of moderation is a relationship with food that needs to be repaired, either through self reflection, or conversations with a professional.
CICO is math, not science.
What we know about how our body uses energy is based on science.
0 -
Yes, it absolutely changes everything.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think the evidence would suggest that not eating fewer calories than you burn, rather than the counting of those calories per se, is why people fail.
Doesn't really change anything. Calorie counting is a tool to achieve correct calorie intake/burn - most people who use it fail - therefore the tool is plausibly "too difficult" to succeed with.
"It's not hard, I just don't want to do it" is completely different from "It's too hard to manage."
It's like saying everyone who isn't a doctor isn't a doctor because medical school is too difficult when there are plenty of other reasons why people aren't doctors and plenty of people who could graduate medical school but don't want to.
Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
0 -
True, CICO may be science but so are macronutrients (protein, fats, and carbs which includes sugar). You should be tracking both. The documentary points out (as well as many health sites and forum posts here on MFP) that the macronutrient imbalance can cause physiological reactions in the body.
It's like a car, you can say gas is what powers the engine so its the only thing that matters on a road trip. But if you don't have oil, transmission fluid, and coolant, you're going to have problems down the road.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
0 -
You are saying otherwise. You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult. For counting calories, as such, to be the problem, you'd have to presume that if the same people were handed pre-counted food at a calorie level suitable to their weight loss, they'd then succeed. That seems pretty unlikely.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
Basically, there are multiple variables and you're presuming the outcome is the result of only one of those variables. Good luck with that.0 -
Just curious, has anyone seen the documentary?0
-
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
If you're talking about satiety, and nutrition, then you're automatically not talking about CICO, period. I don't know how you cannot see that blaring misinterpretation.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You are saying otherwise. You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult. For counting calories, as such, to be the problem, you'd have to presume that if the same people were handed pre-counted food at a calorie level suitable to their weight loss, they'd then succeed. That seems pretty unlikely.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
This is why some people prefer Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig or other "diets" with pre-packaged meals. The counting is pretty much done for you. Now whether or not that makes losing weight easy is another story.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You are saying otherwise.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
No, I'm not.You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult.
Losing weight is easy. All you have to do is physically limit people's access to food - weight loss is guaranteed to follow.
Losing weight by counting calories and NOT restricting access to food is hard.
Therefore counting calories, in the context of living with abundant, cheap food, is a hard tool to succeed with.
Tool + context, as it has always been.
0 -
Oh, I get why people would want that. And plenty of people fail using those approaches.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You are saying otherwise. You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult. For counting calories, as such, to be the problem, you'd have to presume that if the same people were handed pre-counted food at a calorie level suitable to their weight loss, they'd then succeed. That seems pretty unlikely.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
This is why some people prefer Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig or other "diets" with pre-packaged meals. The counting is pretty much done for you. Now whether or not that makes losing weight easy is another story.
0 -
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Oh, I get why people would want that. And plenty of people fail using those approaches.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You are saying otherwise. You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult. For counting calories, as such, to be the problem, you'd have to presume that if the same people were handed pre-counted food at a calorie level suitable to their weight loss, they'd then succeed. That seems pretty unlikely.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
This is why some people prefer Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig or other "diets" with pre-packaged meals. The counting is pretty much done for you. Now whether or not that makes losing weight easy is another story.
I'm not arguing that at all. People do fail at those approaches just like people fail at counting calories.
0 -
Most people who attempt any kind of program to lose weight and maintain that loss fail, regardless of the method. There's nothing inherently harder or inferior about calorie counting.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I can shovel down some good roasted broccoli; garlic powder, onion powder, salt, pepper, and just the right amount of crispy. How can anyone stop at just one serving?!0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
A person can and should eat that 500 calories of nutrient dense high fiber food and then, if their calories allow, maybe have a regular sized Snickers bar as a treat.
It's not an either-or proposition.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions