Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »glfernandes828 wrote: »Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad
Ugh, added sugar is not the 'number one cause of rapid weight gain.' Eating at a calorie surplus causes weight gain. Period.
It's a fair statement for Americans in general - SAD is so heavy in sugar- and refined-carbs that if all you did was drop those, you end up with good macros and a reasonable caloric deficit.
The statement was limited to sugar. If most Americans eating the SAD merely dropped sugar, they'd replace the calories in some other way pretty quickly, I'd bet.
If you dropped all refined carbs, that would be a bigger change in the diet and harder to replace all the stuff simply because a lot of convenience products would be off limits. My guess is that that would make it not particularly sustainable unless the person were already committed to making a more fundamental change and had some understanding.
I mean, a good percentage of the people who decide that sugar is scary because of Katie Couric probably couldn't even explain what a refined carb is. If people eating Lean Pockets because they think they are healthy really exist--and I'm still skeptical--they are disproportionately likely to believe that sugar in ketchup and buns at McD's magically caused them to get fat, rather than overconsuming calories.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
What I find strange is that if someone is eating huge amounts of sugar--as I agree too many Americans are--it's really impossible not to know that. So the obvious answer is not to freak out about how sugar is scary and in everything and is making you fat, but to, you know, eat less sugar. Eating less sugar for someone who is eating the amounts we are talking about is NOT challenging and doesn't even require careful reading of labels, although I am certainly all for reading labels and have always done it myself. It simply means eating fewer sweets, drinking less soda or switching to diet, cutting down on sugary coffee drinks, and cutting down on obvious sources of sugar in breakfast products.
Yet people act like they are being tricked and somehow were consuming this stuff unaware, and like there's some trick to cutting down besides just cutting down. Eat less. Eat none if that's your preference, sure. But don't tell me that eating any sugar (or "added sugar") makes people fat and is inherently unhealthy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »glfernandes828 wrote: »Yeah! I liked it, I already knew about how serious of a problem it is in our country but it was interesting to learn that companies try to act like they're helping the problem by putting out "reduced fat" products when really all the fat is being replaced with added sugar which is the number one cause of the rapid weight gain to obesity. So sad
Ugh, added sugar is not the 'number one cause of rapid weight gain.' Eating at a calorie surplus causes weight gain. Period.
It's a fair statement for Americans in general - SAD is so heavy in sugar- and refined-carbs that if all you did was drop those, you end up with good macros and a reasonable caloric deficit.
The statement was limited to sugar. If most Americans eating the SAD merely dropped sugar, they'd replace the calories in some other way pretty quickly, I'd bet.
If you dropped all refined carbs, that would be a bigger change in the diet and harder to replace all the stuff simply because a lot of convenience products would be off limits. My guess is that that would make it not particularly sustainable unless the person were already committed to making a more fundamental change and had some understanding.
I mean, a good percentage of the people who decide that sugar is scary because of Katie Couric probably couldn't even explain what a refined carb is. If people eating Lean Pockets because they think they are healthy really exist--and I'm still skeptical--they are disproportionately likely to believe that sugar in ketchup and buns at McD's magically caused them to get fat, rather than overconsuming calories.
That's the sad part - they do exist. I'd be willing to bet that every office lunch room has at least 1 Lean Cuisine, Lean Pockets, or Weight Watchers meal in the fridge right now, brought in by someone who is convinced that's going to offset their latte and muffin for breakfast, and pizza and beer for dinner.0 -
I would probably disagree though. The US is easily the country the consumes the most fast food. And the average fast food meal has about 48 grams of fat. Now again, I know that there's going to be carb based ingredients included in the meals, but overall the combination of the two is easily is the reason for a high calorie diet. Lots of people (I would estimate 1/3) in the US eat more than one fast food meal a day.
I'll give you that. But overall along with sugar consumption per capita, the average US citizen is consuming about 800+ calories more per day than they need. And trump that inadequate physical activity, it's the main reason obesity in the US is the highest in the world. Is it all that 800 calories from sugar? Maybe half, but the amount of high fat combined with the sugar (especially in the Southern states where A LOT of food is fried) is more than likely the reason.MoiAussi93 wrote: »Just if people don't know, there are at least 3 countries that consume more sugar than the US. And they don't even come close to the obesity rates that the US has.
http://www.sucden.com/statistics/4_world-sugar-consumption
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're interpreting that incorrectly. That is total consumption, not PER CAPITA consumption. India may consume more sugar than us, but they have 1.3 billion people. The US has the highest per capita consumption, meaning the "average" American eats more sugar than anyone else in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/05/where-people-around-the-world-eat-the-most-sugar-and-fat/
This article has recent data.
Still even countries like Brazil with a smaller population as a whole consumes more sugar yet doesn't have the obesity issues that face the US.
It's more than just about sugar. It's overall about how US citizens don't monitor how much they consume a day.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
According to that link, our fat consumption is 65.5 g per, which is within the guidelines for a 2000 cal diet. We're eating a lot more than 2000 cals, but the excess is not from fat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Lol, many children seem to. Lots of kids don't get the correct nutrition and or macro/micros needed for a balanced diet, yet normally we as a species are our leanest as kids.tedboosalis7 wrote: »you cannot outrun a bad diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Lol, many children seem to. Lots of kids don't get the correct nutrition and or macro/micros needed for a balanced diet, yet normally we as a species are our leanest as kids.tedboosalis7 wrote: »you cannot outrun a bad diet.
I'll also differ to prison food again too. Heck these guys don't get to run either and the obesity rate in prison isn't that of the standard population.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
[/quote]
0 -
Lol, many children seem to. Lots of kids don't get the correct nutrition and or macro/micros needed for a balanced diet, yet normally we as a species are our leanest as kids.tedboosalis7 wrote: »you cannot outrun a bad diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I taught elementary/middle school in Japan for 3 years, and overweight kids were exceptionally rare. Uniform meals typically consisted of a protein, veggie, and bowl of white rice, glass of 2% milk. On special occasions, a piece of karage (or fried chicken) was a treat. I'm still told the lunches came in around 1100 calories -- but the kids were so active (riding unicycles around, playing soccer constantly) that I think they just burn it right off.
0 -
Lol, many children seem to. Lots of kids don't get the correct nutrition and or macro/micros needed for a balanced diet, yet normally we as a species are our leanest as kids.tedboosalis7 wrote: »you cannot outrun a bad diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Children burn an obscene amount of calories per day. Or I was led to believe that.
As an adult, if you speak in the language of CICO - then you can't eat 5000 calories per day unless you were a powerlifting athletic type - an athlete. That's the crucial difference.
So - if you cannot eat like we did as kids/athletes and are calorie-restricted to no more than 3K per day, then the nutritional profile of the diet has even greater significance. The less calories eaten, the more conscious one must be of what you are eating.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »I think the documentary has a big political slant but let's be very very very clear on this - you cannot outrun a bad diet. You have to eat nutritiously, now for some people that means having candy/cake whatever - but that's not the staple of the diet, but for others that means you cannot touch added sugars at all. I know I am one of the latter. Having been a former chocolatier and having grown up surrounded by sugar all the time, I can flat out tell you that increased sugar intake over the course of many years WILL cause a problem.
Care to finally elaborate on what you mean by that exactly? "you cannot outrun a bad diet"
It means you can't eat tons of calories and expect to burn them all off with exercise and lose weight.
I'm asking for him to define it.
You cannot outrun a bad diet - if you fill your diet with junk, then you will become junk.
GIGO - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out. That's why peeps who endorse CICO and CICO alone can end up with GIGO. You cannot ignore the nutritional profile of junk food over fresh whole foods. Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
Does it mean 100% of your diet must be whole foods? No. But it should remain constant - at least 80% of the diet should be nutrient-dense - 80% is basically showing up for life. If you can't achieve 80%, then there's something wrong with the diet.
There's also no dispute over the nutritional micros of broccoli versus a candy bar of the same calories. Same goes for any other fruit versus a candy bar. It's not even close. No debate.
You cannot outrun a bad diet. You will pay the price somewhere down the line if you eat GIGO-style. There's no question about it.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I think the documentary has a big political slant but let's be very very very clear on this - you cannot outrun a bad diet. You have to eat nutritiously, now for some people that means having candy/cake whatever - but that's not the staple of the diet, but for others that means you cannot touch added sugars at all. I know I am one of the latter. Having been a former chocolatier and having grown up surrounded by sugar all the time, I can flat out tell you that increased sugar intake over the course of many years WILL cause a problem.
Care to finally elaborate on what you mean by that exactly? "you cannot outrun a bad diet"
It means you can't eat tons of calories and expect to burn them all off with exercise and lose weight.
I'm asking for him to define it.
You cannot outrun a bad diet - if you fill your diet with junk, then you will become junk.
GIGO - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out. That's why peeps who endorse CICO and CICO alone can end up with GIGO. You cannot ignore the nutritional profile of junk food over fresh whole foods. Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
Does it mean 100% of your diet must be whole foods? No. But it should remain constant - at least 80% of the diet should be nutrient-dense - 80% is basically showing up for life. If you can't achieve 80%, then there's something wrong with the diet.
There's also no dispute over the nutritional micros of broccoli versus a candy bar of the same calories. Same goes for any other fruit versus a candy bar. It's not even close. No debate.
You cannot outrun a bad diet. You will pay the price somewhere down the line if you eat GIGO-style. There's no question about it.
I'm starting to feel like a broken record.
The difference in TEF between different foods is so small it's negligible.
Also obviously the usual strawman used "If you say CICO you obviously only eat garbage. No middle ground exists."0 -
I was especially displeased with the amount of misinformation provided in the documentary about the link between sugar and diabetes. You can't "catch" diabetes by eating too much sugar or being too overweight. These two factors exacerbate symptoms, and can lead to diagnoses in people who suddenly realize that constant up/down swings in sugar and lbs are making them feel bad, but these swings don’t cause the disease. It’s a common misconception, but it still really bothers me when I hear it from a source that proclaims to be an authority on the matter.
Both of my parents and both sets of grandparents have had Type II. So while I’m watching my weight and eating sugar sparingly, I’m under no delusion that I will likely feel diabetic symptoms and be diagnosed at some point in my lifetime. My brother is bracing for it too, and he’s been even more successful than I in regards to weight control and regular exercise.
Even though it can aid the symptoms, it’s pretty ignorant to assume cutting sugar is a magical solution to preventing a disease like diabetes.
0 -
maniacallaugh wrote: »I was especially displeased with the amount of misinformation provided in the documentary about the link between sugar and diabetes. You can't "catch" diabetes by eating too much sugar or being too overweight. These two factors exacerbate symptoms, and can lead to diagnoses in people who suddenly realize that constant up/down swings in sugar and lbs are making them feel bad, but these swings don’t cause the disease. It’s a common misconception, but it still really bothers me when I hear it from a source that proclaims to be an authority on the matter.
Both of my parents and both sets of grandparents have had Type II. So while I’m watching my weight and eating sugar sparingly, I’m under no delusion that I will likely feel diabetic symptoms and be diagnosed at some point in my lifetime. My brother is bracing for it too, and he’s been even more successful than I in regards to weight control and regular exercise.
Even though it can aid the symptoms, it’s pretty ignorant to assume cutting sugar is a magical solution to preventing a disease like diabetes.
They don't know exactly what causes diabetes yet. Most scientists believe it is a combination of genetics and lifestyle choices, although that has not been proven conclusively. So being overweight and eating too much sugar and other carbs most likely does increase the odds of getting it.
And if you truly believe sugar plays no role, why are you deliberately eating sugar sparingly? If it really doesn't matter...0 -
And if you truly believe sugar plays no role, why are you deliberately eating sugar sparingly? If it really doesn't matter...
To support my argument that I'm doing things right, yet will likely get a diagnosis at some point in my life anyway. There are other reasons to eat well and exercise.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »maniacallaugh wrote: »I was especially displeased with the amount of misinformation provided in the documentary about the link between sugar and diabetes. You can't "catch" diabetes by eating too much sugar or being too overweight. These two factors exacerbate symptoms, and can lead to diagnoses in people who suddenly realize that constant up/down swings in sugar and lbs are making them feel bad, but these swings don’t cause the disease. It’s a common misconception, but it still really bothers me when I hear it from a source that proclaims to be an authority on the matter.
Both of my parents and both sets of grandparents have had Type II. So while I’m watching my weight and eating sugar sparingly, I’m under no delusion that I will likely feel diabetic symptoms and be diagnosed at some point in my lifetime. My brother is bracing for it too, and he’s been even more successful than I in regards to weight control and regular exercise.
Even though it can aid the symptoms, it’s pretty ignorant to assume cutting sugar is a magical solution to preventing a disease like diabetes.
They don't know exactly what causes diabetes yet. Most scientists believe it is a combination of genetics and lifestyle choices, although that has not been proven conclusively. So being overweight and eating too much sugar and other carbs most likely does increase the odds of getting it.
And if you truly believe sugar plays no role, why are you deliberately eating sugar sparingly? If it really doesn't matter...
Diabetes.org itself says that eating sugar is not linked to diabetes. Drinking sugar sweetened beverages is though.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
If you aren't pigging out regularly TEF shouldn't be a factor. All of these arguments about maximizing the amount we can eat yet not digest sound to me like people think they can't be satisfied on a reasonable amount of food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of whole foods--I think they taste best, usually--and think nutrition should be considered because of, well, health, but the idea that we are all hungry all the time is just wrong.
I don't think Americans overeat because we are so incredibly hungry. Too many of us overeat because we are constantly surrounded by cheap and easy to acquire foods that we find tempting. To deal with that you either learn to resist, to focus on other reasons to eat, or change your palate (but even if one is picky about quality food is really easy to acquire and often on offer, IME).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
If you aren't pigging out regularly TEF shouldn't be a factor. All of these arguments about maximizing the amount we can eat yet not digest sound to me like people think they can't be satisfied on a reasonable amount of food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of whole foods--I think they taste best, usually--and think nutrition should be considered because of, well, health, but the idea that we are all hungry all the time is just wrong.
I don't think Americans overeat because we are so incredibly hungry. Too many of us overeat because we are constantly surrounded by cheap and easy to acquire foods that we find tempting. To deal with that you either learn to resist, to focus on other reasons to eat, or change your palate (but even if one is picky about quality food is really easy to acquire and often on offer, IME).
And even if it's not tempting, people eat it anyway because they're bored and it's there.0 -
Hormones are a factor in appetite and vary from person to person. I know some people who actually forget to eat...I am not one of those people, lol. Eating a higher protein diet helps control appetite for me personally, though.lemurcat12 wrote: »Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of whole foods--I think they taste best, usually--and think nutrition should be considered because of, well, health, but the idea that we are all hungry all the time is just wrong.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
If you aren't pigging out regularly TEF shouldn't be a factor. All of these arguments about maximizing the amount we can eat yet not digest sound to me like people think they can't be satisfied on a reasonable amount of food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of whole foods--I think they taste best, usually--and think nutrition should be considered because of, well, health, but the idea that we are all hungry all the time is just wrong.
I don't think Americans overeat because we are so incredibly hungry. Too many of us overeat because we are constantly surrounded by cheap and easy to acquire foods that we find tempting. To deal with that you either learn to resist, to focus on other reasons to eat, or change your palate (but even if one is picky about quality food is really easy to acquire and often on offer, IME).
And even if it's not tempting, people eat it anyway because they're bored and it's there.
Very true.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Some things were true, but the show was an over-exaggeration of sugar being the source of obesity. It isn't. Self-control, and knowledge of proper nutrition were clearly the issue in that show. The parents were as ignorant as the kids were. They kept saying "they can't lose weight, no matter how hard they try". The show failed to explain what attempts were actually made. So, instead, they put crying obese kids in front of the camera. It was heartless. If they wanted to help, they should have offered a nutritionist to guide them through, and later show the results of their efforts. Instead, they wanted to blast the food industry. Most of the show was lame and misdirected. But, there were some good points about advertising, which I do agree with them on that topic.
This exactly. The sugar/drug study they used as "proof" was rats. Rats are not humans. Most of their science was utterly wrong. Lusting as a resource? Please. The fact that they said literally "It is impossible to count calories. No one can do it." Bothered me so badly. They took away all of the personal responsibility when it came to weight and blamed it on the food industry. I feel like they exploited those poor kids so badly, because they didn't do anything to help.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
If you aren't pigging out regularly TEF shouldn't be a factor. All of these arguments about maximizing the amount we can eat yet not digest sound to me like people think they can't be satisfied on a reasonable amount of food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of whole foods--I think they taste best, usually--and think nutrition should be considered because of, well, health, but the idea that we are all hungry all the time is just wrong.
I don't think Americans overeat because we are so incredibly hungry. Too many of us overeat because we are constantly surrounded by cheap and easy to acquire foods that we find tempting. To deal with that you either learn to resist, to focus on other reasons to eat, or change your palate (but even if one is picky about quality food is really easy to acquire and often on offer, IME).
And even if it's not tempting, people eat it anyway because they're bored and it's there.
One of the other reasons is that we as Americans believe portion sizes are much larger than they should be. You go to a restaurant here and you get a huge plate of food that's easily enough for two meals. That's considered a 'portion' of food. We've trained ourselves to eat more than we really should.0 -
This was an awful documentary. Sugar turns straight to fat. So much wrong in this one film.
My experience I was one of those kids weighing that much at a young age (teenage years) I was 205 at age 14 and basically slow bounce around from there to 265 in my 20s. While the parent should take responsibility I don't remember all the meals I was eating behind my parents back. So there was user responsibility too. Soda is the cause of obesity. Those people are just butthurt. Soda doesn't take the claim of obesity.0 -
Lol, many children seem to. Lots of kids don't get the correct nutrition and or macro/micros needed for a balanced diet, yet normally we as a species are our leanest as kids.tedboosalis7 wrote: »you cannot outrun a bad diet.
I'll also differ to prison food again too. Heck these guys don't get to run either and the obesity rate in prison isn't that of the standard population.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not this guy.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I think the documentary has a big political slant but let's be very very very clear on this - you cannot outrun a bad diet. You have to eat nutritiously, now for some people that means having candy/cake whatever - but that's not the staple of the diet, but for others that means you cannot touch added sugars at all. I know I am one of the latter. Having been a former chocolatier and having grown up surrounded by sugar all the time, I can flat out tell you that increased sugar intake over the course of many years WILL cause a problem.
Care to finally elaborate on what you mean by that exactly? "you cannot outrun a bad diet"
It means you can't eat tons of calories and expect to burn them all off with exercise and lose weight.
I'm asking for him to define it.
You cannot outrun a bad diet - if you fill your diet with junk, then you will become junk.
GIGO - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out. That's why peeps who endorse CICO and CICO alone can end up with GIGO. You cannot ignore the nutritional profile of junk food over fresh whole foods. Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
Does it mean 100% of your diet must be whole foods? No. But it should remain constant - at least 80% of the diet should be nutrient-dense - 80% is basically showing up for life. If you can't achieve 80%, then there's something wrong with the diet.
There's also no dispute over the nutritional micros of broccoli versus a candy bar of the same calories. Same goes for any other fruit versus a candy bar. It's not even close. No debate.
You cannot outrun a bad diet. You will pay the price somewhere down the line if you eat GIGO-style. There's no question about it.
Did you even watch the documentary? You don't sound like you did.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I think the documentary has a big political slant but let's be very very very clear on this - you cannot outrun a bad diet. You have to eat nutritiously, now for some people that means having candy/cake whatever - but that's not the staple of the diet, but for others that means you cannot touch added sugars at all. I know I am one of the latter. Having been a former chocolatier and having grown up surrounded by sugar all the time, I can flat out tell you that increased sugar intake over the course of many years WILL cause a problem.
Care to finally elaborate on what you mean by that exactly? "you cannot outrun a bad diet"
It means you can't eat tons of calories and expect to burn them all off with exercise and lose weight.
I'm asking for him to define it.
You cannot outrun a bad diet - if you fill your diet with junk, then you will become junk.
GIGO - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out. That's why peeps who endorse CICO and CICO alone can end up with GIGO. You cannot ignore the nutritional profile of junk food over fresh whole foods. Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
Does it mean 100% of your diet must be whole foods? No. But it should remain constant - at least 80% of the diet should be nutrient-dense - 80% is basically showing up for life. If you can't achieve 80%, then there's something wrong with the diet.
There's also no dispute over the nutritional micros of broccoli versus a candy bar of the same calories. Same goes for any other fruit versus a candy bar. It's not even close. No debate.
You cannot outrun a bad diet. You will pay the price somewhere down the line if you eat GIGO-style. There's no question about it.
Did you even watch the documentary? You don't sound like you did.
In your opinion, is it worth watching, even just for the sake of discussion? Or is it just *that* brain-melting?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »I think the documentary has a big political slant but let's be very very very clear on this - you cannot outrun a bad diet. You have to eat nutritiously, now for some people that means having candy/cake whatever - but that's not the staple of the diet, but for others that means you cannot touch added sugars at all. I know I am one of the latter. Having been a former chocolatier and having grown up surrounded by sugar all the time, I can flat out tell you that increased sugar intake over the course of many years WILL cause a problem.
Care to finally elaborate on what you mean by that exactly? "you cannot outrun a bad diet"
It means you can't eat tons of calories and expect to burn them all off with exercise and lose weight.
I'm asking for him to define it.
You cannot outrun a bad diet - if you fill your diet with junk, then you will become junk.
GIGO - Garbage-In, Garbage-Out. That's why peeps who endorse CICO and CICO alone can end up with GIGO. You cannot ignore the nutritional profile of junk food over fresh whole foods. Metabolics prove that whole foods require the most energy to consume/digest versus junk foods. There's no disputing this.
Does it mean 100% of your diet must be whole foods? No. But it should remain constant - at least 80% of the diet should be nutrient-dense - 80% is basically showing up for life. If you can't achieve 80%, then there's something wrong with the diet.
There's also no dispute over the nutritional micros of broccoli versus a candy bar of the same calories. Same goes for any other fruit versus a candy bar. It's not even close. No debate.
You cannot outrun a bad diet. You will pay the price somewhere down the line if you eat GIGO-style. There's no question about it.
Did you even watch the documentary? You don't sound like you did.
In your opinion, is it worth watching, even just for the sake of discussion? Or is it just *that* brain-melting?
I was one of those kids missus being type II diabetic. I was literally laughing throughout the whole thing. You think MFP has thread that say sugar is the devil. This film does it.
To put the blame on my parents for being obese at a young age. Some could claim that. My parents weren't and aren't overweight like those parents were from the film. When you actually talk to me about my food habits then you would notice that you have to blame the user too. Yeah I didn't know nutrition but of course you could tell I was overeating like it was a hobby.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
- 426 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