We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Katie Couric's Fed Up
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »loganrandy69 wrote: »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).
How's this? I have such a connection, and so care about what I eat. Understanding CICO (which is just a fact) allows me to work within the framework of what I personally want to eat and my other goals.CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar.
CICO does nothing. It's just a fact. And the fact is that 500 calories over maintenance from "healthy," homecooked food will lead to weight gain as much as any other calories would. I gained weight this way myself in the past. That you understand how CICO works doesn't mean you must ignore other important things, like nutrition or how the food makes you feel physically.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.
Why? I lost weight by understanding the facts and figuring out how to apply them to my life. Having Katie Couric tell me how to eat would have been superior why? And why should I assume other fat people are too dumb or dysfunction to do what I did and figure out a sensible way to eat (which seems like a pretty basic human function, so the idea that most people are too helpless or stupid to do this is pretty insulting).
Personally, one reason I like logging as an alternative for people is that if you pay attention to what you eat and notice the effects on you and that eating certain foods makes it easier to eat less than others, you ought to naturally make changes that make it easier. If you don't, it's because you don't want to or don't care enough, not because you don't understand how nutrient dense foods are. Anyone who claims that they didn't know it's generally healthy to eat veggies and not so healthy to survive on fast food fries and soda and Twinkies (as the anti CICO folks so often assume we are all doing), is lying.
Congrats on your weight loss. You said you learned the facts and applying them. Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts. The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point. The documentary doesn't assume people are dumb or helpless. Actually it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed. You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old? And even if they do are they presented the option of making a healthy choice or are they being overwhelmed by the lesser choices? Lots of people do not know everything. Everyday someone is born who has never heard of the Flintstones. The same is true about nutritional information.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »
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.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
Sure, if you teach them what to look for. I was raised a vegetarian and was taught to check nutrition labels for any animal products (beef/chicken stock, gelatin, lard, etc.). The earliest age I remember doing this was 7 when I would trade lunch foods with other kids. I'd check the label on their food before trading. No Hostess products for me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »
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.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
This is the most misleading aspect of the documentary, from what I've heard. For example, someone here posted (I think from the movie) a comparison of the sugar in a WHOLE JAR of pasta sauce with a candy bar, ignoring the fact that the jar is multiple servings.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that probably few of the calories are from the demon ADDED sugar, as the basic ingredients (like tomatoes) contribute plenty of sugar. I just pulled up a serving size of Ragu "spaghetti sauce," which I assume is a pretty standard example (I wouldn't buy jarred sauce myself, because I'm snobby about stuff like that)--8 grams of sugar in a serving size. Interestingly, I just made a pasta sauce last night (included lean beef and tons of veggies, as well as tomatoes and olives). Mine included NO added sugar, and yet one serving has, well, 8 grams of sugar. Hmm. Hard to get so upset about the Ragu, then.
My view is that the claim that the calories from added sugar in these savory products plays a significant (or any) role in obesity requires a huge leap.
Exactly. People are raving about added sugars in foods when it's most of the time not more than a pinch extra. I remember in another thread when someone argued McDonalds burgers make you fat and are "addictive" because of the sugar which was less than 10 grams per burger or so.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »
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.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
This is the most misleading aspect of the documentary, from what I've heard. For example, someone here posted (I think from the movie) a comparison of the sugar in a WHOLE JAR of pasta sauce with a candy bar, ignoring the fact that the jar is multiple servings.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that probably few of the calories are from the demon ADDED sugar, as the basic ingredients (like tomatoes) contribute plenty of sugar. I just pulled up a serving size of Ragu "spaghetti sauce," which I assume is a pretty standard example (I wouldn't buy jarred sauce myself, because I'm snobby about stuff like that)--8 grams of sugar in a serving size. Interestingly, I just made a pasta sauce last night (included lean beef and tons of veggies, as well as tomatoes and olives). Mine included NO added sugar, and yet one serving has, well, 8 grams of sugar. Hmm. Hard to get so upset about the Ragu, then.
My view is that the claim that the calories from added sugar in these savory products plays a significant (or any) role in obesity requires a huge leap.
Great points. The spaghetti sauce comparison was a bit of a stretch. And I did laugh during the soda section while I was drinking some coke zero.0 -
I only watched some of the documentary before I got fed up. Their points were meandering. First they were accusing exercise of correlating to weight gain (ignoring everything else that changed in society) and then it was added sugar. But as a PP pointed out some of their examples like the spaghetti sauce were really flimsy.0
-
I actually watched this documentary this morning, I thought it was very sad. Sad that America is having such issues and that they are to the terrible extent that children are having lap band surgery. What about basic nutrition education in schools, do they not do that anymore to help educate the kids?
I don't think though that it completely discounts CICO, it just helps point out how the industries involved have abused that mantra, to sell high sugar foods that have definitely had a hand in our growing diabetes epidemic. I like to treat everything I read or watch with caution.
This.0 -
Danielle_Husband wrote: »I watched this documentary awhile back. It's actually really entertaining, even though it is crazy biased. They actually make a great case for CICO, IMO, though they loop everything back to sugar. The problem with the entire documentary is that they set out with a conclusion and then built a body of evidence around it. It's a lot of "see, we knew that would happen."
I think that films like this one can be great for starting a discussion, which I've stated on previous threads about it.
The graphics are pretty awesome, so at least there's that.
This too!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
There is a %DV on nutrition labels over here.
For carbs and fiber yes, but not sugar. It's just labeled in grams not daily percentage.0 -
McDonalds burgers make people fat because they eat it for lunch every day. Per burger, they're actually pretty light for a burger out because they are so cheap on the ingredients. A Quarter Pounder with Cheese at 520cal/41carbs/26fat/29protein is a diet burger compared to the Kona (sweet teriyaki sauce, grilled pineapple, peppered bacon and melted mozza; with mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato and red onion) burger served at the Original Joe's across the street which packs 1390cal/75g carbs/88g fat/62g protein.
The O-Joe's burger would be way more addictive than the McD's one anyway, since on the scientific scale of deliciousness, it rates as "way more" than a quarter pounder with cheese.0 -
I actually watched this documentary this morning, I thought it was very sad. Sad that America is having such issues and that they are to the terrible extent that children are having lap band surgery. What about basic nutrition education in schools, do they not do that anymore to help educate the kids?
I don't think though that it completely discounts CICO, it just helps point out how the industries involved have abused that mantra, to sell high sugar foods that have definitely had a hand in our growing diabetes epidemic. I like to treat everything I read or watch with caution.
The ADA disagrees with that.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
They only link drinking high sugar drinks to diabetes, not foods.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
There is a %DV on nutrition labels over here.
For carbs and fiber yes, but not sugar. It's just labeled in grams not daily percentage.
There's also a percentage here. On my BBQ sauce that I have at hand right now(bulls-eye with bacon flavor), 4.6 grams of sugar which apparently equals 5%.0 -
Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.0 -
McDonalds burgers make people fat because they eat it for lunch every day. Per burger, they're actually pretty light for a burger out because they are so cheap on the ingredients. A Quarter Pounder with Cheese at 520cal/41carbs/26fat/29protein is a diet burger compared to the Kona (sweet teriyaki sauce, grilled pineapple, peppered bacon and melted mozza; with mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato and red onion) burger served at the Original Joe's across the street which packs 1390cal/75g carbs/88g fat/62g protein.
The O-Joe's burger would be way more addictive than the McD's one anyway, since on the scientific scale of deliciousness, it rates as "way more" than a quarter pounder with cheese.
Point...this post makes it.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »
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.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
This is the most misleading aspect of the documentary, from what I've heard. For example, someone here posted (I think from the movie) a comparison of the sugar in a WHOLE JAR of pasta sauce with a candy bar, ignoring the fact that the jar is multiple servings.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that probably few of the calories are from the demon ADDED sugar, as the basic ingredients (like tomatoes) contribute plenty of sugar. I just pulled up a serving size of Ragu "spaghetti sauce," which I assume is a pretty standard example (I wouldn't buy jarred sauce myself, because I'm snobby about stuff like that)--8 grams of sugar in a serving size. Interestingly, I just made a pasta sauce last night (included lean beef and tons of veggies, as well as tomatoes and olives). Mine included NO added sugar, and yet one serving has, well, 8 grams of sugar. Hmm. Hard to get so upset about the Ragu, then.
My view is that the claim that the calories from added sugar in these savory products plays a significant (or any) role in obesity requires a huge leap.
Exactly. People are raving about added sugars in foods when it's most of the time not more than a pinch extra. I remember in another thread when someone argued McDonalds burgers make you fat and are "addictive" because of the sugar which was less than 10 grams per burger or so.
Yeah, I still think that's the funniest thing ever claimed at MFP, even beating out baking soda as nuclear waste or whatever.
You have to really be wacked out about sugar to think that people go to McD's in any significant number for a sugar fix.
Obviously, it's the fat and salt! ;-)0 -
The problem with childhood obesity is that fact that they sit in front of the tv/computer screens ALL DAY LONG, in my day when I was child I ate a lot of foods, but then I was outside from morning until night running around the neighborhood with friends, playing games like football, kickball, etc.!!!!!!!! I never had issues with weight and I can only remember a handful of kids in my school that had weight issues.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
There is a %DV on nutrition labels over here.
For carbs and fiber yes, but not sugar. It's just labeled in grams not daily percentage.
I don't think the US yet has a DV for sugar, so it would be tough to do.
Also, the WHO and other recommendations for this are added sugar, and packaged food doesn't distinguish.
The WHO's reasoning is actually contrary to the documentary, as it focuses on the concern about high calorie, low nutrient foods that tend to have lots of added sugar. Adding a bit of sugar to some food that's not a high calorie sweet treat really is just a question of whether it adds lots of calories. I eat smoked salmon that has a bit of sugar in the processing--is that something I should worry about? I'd think not, and similarly adding a bit of sugar to a rhubarb sauce (homemade) or even a marinara (although I personally do not, it's common) or some bread when baking really isn't a big thing. The idea that these are the reasons so many are overweight is a red herring.
Similarly, while I have nothing against full fat dairy, the number of people who seem to think that sugar is ADDED to skim milk or low fat cottage cheese is just bizarre and I think due to misinformation of this sort--from the movie, I mean, and similar sources, not the manufacturers or gov't or whatever.
I actually find that there's a good bit of accurate information out there for anyone who cares, and think anyone who claims otherwise is probably making excuses. (I'm generally in favor of more information, though, so long as it's not unreasonably burdensome or misleading.)0 -
The problem with childhood obesity is that fact that they sit in front of the tv/computer screens ALL DAY LONG, in my day when I was child I ate a lot of foods, but then I was outside from morning until night running around the neighborhood with friends, playing games like football, kickball, etc.!!!!!!!! I never had issues with weight and I can only remember a handful of kids in my school that had weight issues.
This.
I have always eaten a LOT of food. Even when I was a young adult, I was eating half again as much as my brothers, but I was the only one who didn't have a weight issue. Every opportunity I had to be outside, riding my bicycle, playing manhunt, kicking a ball around, whatever, I was doing it.
The only time I started having a weight issue was when I injured my leg, forcing me to become less active. Since then, I've put on a lot of weight. However, I'm now trying to lose weight, not by eating less, but to regain the level of activity I used to have.0 -
weight loss to improve a health marker, and better nutrition to improve a health marker aren't the same. we can choose to eat 1200 calories of candy bars every day and lose weight. we can choose to eat mostly veg and protein and no added sugar, and improve health in ways that aren't related to size of waistline. or we can do both. i think the truth is that bodies are complex and no one has a perfect diet. We just work on what we choose to work on. CICO works to lose weight. doesn't mean you improve health, but you accomplish one particular goal. And that can be a good thing. And if you choose to eat a large # of calories, but do it with nutritious foods, maybe you improve your health but not your weight. that can be a good thing too. I'm wary of bashing any one approach, because doing something is better than doing nothing, even if it's not perfect.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.
I should clarify that the film claims that CICO is BS, but the evidence provided actually supports CICO if interpreted without bias. The whole premise of the film is that sugar is the cause of obesity and that people are powerless to lose weight if they are consuming processed items containing sugar because of the way that sugar supposedly impacts the body. Additionally, sugar allegedly leads people to consume extra food.0 -
I so, so, so, so dislike these dietary documentaries like "Supersize Me", and no, I haven't watched them. That would be torture. I'm a reader, and I can read faster than people can talk. When I read, I pick the book up and put it down at my leisure. I skip boring parts. I argue back with the writer in the privacy of my own home. I shoot ahead to the conclusion if I want. I'm in control. A video creates a captive audience and I simply don't have patience for that sort of information control. Besides, video due to it's format, won't get in to the meat of the discussion, like checking cited sources.
Double dastardly points if the documentarist demonises Big Industry or Big Government, or hints at even a shade of "conspiracy". I worked for Big Government for twenty-five years. They're not mysterious and sinister with a hidden agenda. They're incredibly bureaucratic and stupid whose leaders have a very specific agenda. Get re-elected in four years. It creates myopia and a stubborn resistance to implement needed, sustained change.0 -
We better figure out the multi-factors that are creating the obesity epidemic, and we better base our decisions on solid facts. Otherwise the aforementioned Big Government will implement stupid and inconvenient policies that will cause unneeded agony and won't work. For instance, if sugar is not the culprit but it is blamed for childhood obesity, we'll be taking away the Capt'n Crunch and the lolly-pops from an entire generation of children, for no good reason.
0 -
I don't think they can say it is just the sugar causing it.... I hear more and more of people overeating on pizza, fried catfish, French fries, chips/dip, Indian foods, Mexican foods, etc. than the sugary foods. Is it just the quantity that is causing obesity? Nobody ever learning moderation.
I think calorie counting is very important... how else do you know if you are overeating? What other diet option is there to lose weight? Does it not all come down to calories?
ON the Kids.... definitely not as active as they used to be, and being given fast food more often. fast food and soda used to be a treat, not a quick dinner. jmo0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »
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.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
I have elementary school aged kids and my 10 yr old does know how to properly read a nutritional label, because I've taught her how to read them. It would be great if schools taught this kind of thing, but I don't know if this is happening? OP-thanks for the documentary info, I'll have to check it out soon
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »
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.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
We're not a "typical" family. I've been a scratch cook since I was 10 years old and I make pretty much everything we eat except for when everyone else gets pizza.
So any standard analysis of the American diet wouldn't apply to us. My kids don't eat all of those things with those "hidden" sugars in them... oh, sure the yogurt and such, but I'm not terribly worried. It's not to excess.
Regarding your argument about kids? Um, aren't their parents supposed to be the ones regulating their intake? My kids asked for more sugary cereals, they were told no. It's pretty simple. The whole argument about marketing to kids always makes me shake my head because it takes parents out of the equation.
I don't disagree that parents should hold some responsibility. But aren't there times when kids are out of the care of their parents, like at school? The documentary touches on this too. The doc starts to ask about government and corporations roles in helping children make better decisions. And what about parents who think they are making smart decisions but are also struggling too?
Well, again, I can only speak for my family. I homeschool my kids so they eat here most of the time. When they have a meal over a friend's house, I'm not terribly worried by a one-off.
School lunches are problematic, though.
0 -
I actually watched this documentary this morning, I thought it was very sad. Sad that America is having such issues and that they are to the terrible extent that children are having lap band surgery. What about basic nutrition education in schools, do they not do that anymore to help educate the kids?
I don't think though that it completely discounts CICO, it just helps point out how the industries involved have abused that mantra, to sell high sugar foods that have definitely had a hand in our growing diabetes epidemic. I like to treat everything I read or watch with caution.
Y'know, most people here know that I hate anything that demonizes sugar, so I wasn't going to bother with this thread until I saw this post. What I also hate is when people try to blame others for their own actions. Are industries really causing diabetes? Even if they are selling more sugary foods, do they really cause diabetes? No. What causes diabetes, then? Well, type 1 is typically genetic and unavoidable, but type 2 is generally linked to obesity. Obesity, which could be caused by eating sweets...or anything else. So to say "sugary foods have a hand in diabetes" is completely false. It's not the sugar that predisposes you to the disease, it's your weight.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Regarding your argument about kids? Um, aren't their parents supposed to be the ones regulating their intake? My kids asked for more sugary cereals, they were told no. It's pretty simple. The whole argument about marketing to kids always makes me shake my head because it takes parents out of the equation.
Except when some of these things are readily available at school cafeterias. I remember shaking my head in wonder at the school "salad bar" in the elementary school my daughter attended. One of the options at the salad bar was pudding, chocolate or vanilla.
Kids chose the salad bar and had chocolate pudding for lunch. And it was "self serve". So they could plop as much as they want on their plate and fill up with pudding.
When I was a kid we had desserts too for school lunch - but they were pre-measured out in little paper or plastic cups for us. We didn't get to have seconds.
0 -
The problem with childhood obesity is that fact that they sit in front of the tv/computer screens ALL DAY LONG, in my day when I was child I ate a lot of foods, but then I was outside from morning until night running around the neighborhood with friends, playing games like football, kickball, etc.!!!!!!!! I never had issues with weight and I can only remember a handful of kids in my school that had weight issues.
You are right.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Regarding your argument about kids? Um, aren't their parents supposed to be the ones regulating their intake? My kids asked for more sugary cereals, they were told no. It's pretty simple. The whole argument about marketing to kids always makes me shake my head because it takes parents out of the equation.
Except when some of these things are readily available at school cafeterias. I remember shaking my head in wonder at the school "salad bar" in the elementary school my daughter attended. One of the options at the salad bar was pudding, chocolate or vanilla.
Kids chose the salad bar and had chocolate pudding for lunch. And it was "self serve". So they could plop as much as they want on their plate and fill up with pudding.
When I was a kid we had desserts too for school lunch - but they were pre-measured out in little paper or plastic cups for us. We didn't get to have seconds.
My kids are homeschooled, so the school lunch thing has passed us by, but yeah, school lunches are a problem
However, I was addressing a point specifically raised earlier about advertising targeted to kids regarding sugary cereals and the like.
0 -
Do a lot of elementary schools in the US have cafeterias? Until I hit high school, if I didn't bring it with me I didn't eat. The special pizza / hot dog days once every couple months where you'd bring your $5 and get a couple slices or dogs were pretty exciting.0
-
I'm curious how I lost 120 pounds then and have kept it off for 7 months now!! LOL, I must be some kind of miracle!!! The dumbest thing I have ever heard of, lol.Danielle_Husband wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.
I should clarify that the film claims that CICO is BS, but the evidence provided actually supports CICO if interpreted without bias. The whole premise of the film is that sugar is the cause of obesity and that people are powerless to lose weight if they are consuming processed items containing sugar because of the way that sugar supposedly impacts the body. Additionally, sugar allegedly leads people to consume extra food.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions