Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Fed Up: documentary



  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    It is not an epidemic, yet.

    The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.

    Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?

    Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.

    Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.

    One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.

    I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?

    It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.

    I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.

    Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.

    That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.

    Crackers and chips are largely complex carbohydrates...simple carbohydrates are sugar. Complex carbohydrates are starch and fiber. Fruit for example is largely simple carbohydrates.

    Some crackers have whole grains, but the example I referred to (Ritz) does not. They are made from refined white flour that has been stripped of fiber and nutrients. I misspoke stating that potato chips are a simple carbohydrate. Yes, potatoes are complex carbohydrates, but regular old potato chips contain little to no fiber, are high in fat, and it is really difficult to be satiated on one serving of chips. They may contain some potassium, but not much else besides starch and calories.

    Years ago I used to think that me eating Ritz crackers was somehow making a better choice for myself. Now, I'd choose neither.

    People often get confused as to what simple vs. complex carbs are. Simple = simple sugars, and complex = starches (more complex chains of sugars that need to be broken down). Grains are starches (complex) whether they are whole grains or not, and fruit is a simple carb (although it's also packaged with fiber).

    I think people often think "complex carbs" sound like they must be healthier, but the distinction has nothing to do with nutrition. So when cwolfman correctly said Ritz were complex carbs (like chips), he was not saying they were whole grains or making a comment about nutrition. He was saying the carbs in them were from starch.

    Btw, Ritz and potato chips aren't "just carbs" whether simple or complex. They are carbs + fat. They are both easy to overeat for many because of the combination of the two plus the salt they also have.

    About 28 g of Ritz has 144 calories, 74 from fat, 72 from carbs (the numbers are always a bit off due to rounding).

    About 28 g of Lays chips have 149 calories, 86 from fat, 60 from carbs. (Plain potatoes are much closer to "just carbs," but they actually have a pretty good nutrition profile for the calories.)

    It always seems odd to me that so many people seem to characterize these kinds of foods as "carbs."

    When I grew up, crackers were understood to be snack food just like chips, and I really do think most people consider them such even now. Some are lower cal than others (depends on fat content) or might have more fiber.

    100% as per the bolded. Never understand that...
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?


  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Health has more to do than with just food. And weight issues have more to do with overconsumption than with the choice of food. I know lots of vegetarians and "healthy" eaters that still have major weight issues compared to the "dirty" eating many do who are in shape.


  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,360Member Member Posts: 3,360Member Member
    aidydh wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    It is not an epidemic, yet.

    The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.

    The food industry exists to make money, period. They give us what we vote with our dollars that we most want to have available. If people clamored for and spent money on shelf-stable, single-serve eco-friendly packets of ready-to-eat organic brussels sprouts, the companies in the food industry would be crawling over each other to deliver those cheaply, in the consumer-tested tastiest version, in every possible location where they could stock them 24 x 7.

    Blaming the industry that responds to our desires (as expressed in our spending) is a deflection from our own choices and responsibilities, a way to blame someone else, so we can feel like helpless victims that had no other choice.

    We buy the foods, and put them in our own mouths. There are other choices available, and most of us don't make those choices.

    I do not disagree. Food that is manufactured and sold is done so based on economic factors. If it doesn't sell, they stop making it and trying to sell it.

    I don't think the industry holds 100% blame, but I think they hold a lot of responsibility when it comes to their advertising, etc.

    For example, in 2011 air brushed advertisements for wrinkle cream were banned in Britain because the government deemed them as being misleading to the public. Perhaps the blame shouldn't be put on food companies that are functioning within the existing laws, but on having some better guidelines for advertising.

    What unhealthy meals do you think you ate regularly BECAUSE OF ads that misled you as to the calories or nutritional content of your food?

    Personally, I can't think of any.

    One could argue that cereals advertising as "heart healthy" fits, but whole grains and fiber are reasonably healthy and the cereals that are more questionable health-wise are the super sugary ones we all know are full of sugar and not actually what the dietary guidelines recommend (I have always hated cold cereal, sugary or not, don't understand how anyone likes it, but my sister and almost all my friends ate that stuff as kids and were not fat at all).

    Some might say Snackwells, but come on, no one believes a cookie is some kind of nutritional powerhouse or what you should be building a diet around or that low fat means no calories. Also, Snackwells is hardly relevant to current discourse.

    One less than optimum from a health perspective breakfast I used to have for a special treat as a kid was cinnamon toast. Believe me, neither my parents nor I ate that because of any ads, and none of us thought it was a nutritionally recommended breakfast. It was just a fine once in a while kind of food to eat in that my overall diet was pretty balanced (and I was required to eat my vegetables at other meals).
    edited July 11
  • cayenne_007cayenne_007 Posts: 385Member, Premium Member Posts: 385Member, Premium Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Some foods I used to eat thinking I was making a "healthy" choice: granola bars, many different types of crackers, yogurt, breakfast cereals, mostly products that were made with highly refined grains

    There is nothing inherently wrong with any of those foods...

    There's no reason these foods can't be part of a balanced diet, I know many thin healthy people that regularly eat them - in MODERATION! There's nothing wrong with any of these.

    No one in my family is or has ever been overweight more than 10-15 lbs (still within a healthy BMI). We eat eggs, bacon, steak, and gasp** sugar & fat too! The thing that matters is to consume portions that make sense for the amount of physical activity that you do.

    Sitting around the house watching tv or staring at a computer does far worse things for your health.

    The attitude of blaming others for our physical condition - it's ridiculous....
Sign In or Register to comment.