Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Fed Up: documentary

12357

Replies

  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    No food can be labeled good, bad, healthy, or unhealthy without context and dose....

    ol98yta004gb.jpg

    A picture says a thousand words... =)
  • LyndaBSSLyndaBSS Posts: 5,870Member, Premium Member Posts: 5,870Member, Premium Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    No food can be labeled good, bad, healthy, or unhealthy without context and dose....

    ol98yta004gb.jpg

    A picture says a thousand words... =)

    There is absolutely no way I balance my eating with the occasional donut and not expect to gain weight.

    Yet I can. So is the problem the diet or the dieter?

    ^^^^ so few words, so much wisdom
  • mmapagsmmapags Posts: 8,170Member Member Posts: 8,170Member 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...

    I agree. It is all about context and quantity.
  • FibroHikerFibroHiker Posts: 268Member Member Posts: 268Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    No food can be labeled good, bad, healthy, or unhealthy without context and dose....

    ol98yta004gb.jpg

    A picture says a thousand words... =)

    There is absolutely no way I balance my eating with the occasional donut and not expect to gain weight.

    Yet I can. So is the problem the diet or the dieter?

    So I guess after all thatyou CAN say the problem is me.
  • estherdragonbatestherdragonbat Posts: 5,145Member Member Posts: 5,145Member Member
    aidydh wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    It is not an epidemic, yet.

    https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c

    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).

    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, and highly processed "lean" pre-made dinner meals. I'm sure someone is going to argue that there is some kind of nutrition benefit from these foods. Technically there is nutrition benefit in all foods as all calories give us energy.

    The idea that you may not have experienced the same as someone else, doesn't mean that others spent experience it.

    Darn straight! Granola bars aren't an unhealthy choice. My typical breakfast:

    pgcmptokwud4.png

    The bar flavor varies, as does the weight of the fruit, but this is a pretty good way to get my morning energy.

    I snack on dry breakfast cereal; a weighed 28 to 30 gram serving gives me 30% of my iron RDA. Not the super-sugary stuff, but the somewhat sweet like Corn Squares or Krave.

    Energy isn't nutrition btw. Too many people conflate the two.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,363Member Member Posts: 3,363Member Member
    aidydh wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    It is not an epidemic, yet.

    https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c

    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).

    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, and highly processed "lean" pre-made dinner meals. I'm sure someone is going to argue that there is some kind of nutrition benefit from these foods. Technically there is nutrition benefit in all foods as all calories give us energy.

    The idea that you may not have experienced the same as someone else, doesn't mean that others spent experience it.

    The issue with granola bars is that they are basically just glorified candy bars in many cases, but it isn't that hard to tell when that's so, and they have calorie information. Eating them doesn't make you fat, eating too many does.

    Yogurt is a good I ate a lot when losing weight. Greek yogurt can be a really helpful source of protein.

    Breakfast cereals I covered before.

    Lean pre-made dinners wouldn't be my choice, but again the issue is total calories. Presumably you were eating lots of extra cals in your day.

    Anyway, choosing these foods didn't make anyone fat. It might have left you hungrier than you would have been with more satiating choices (I find yogurt quite satisfying and same with a Kind bar), but your choice what else to eat if hungry.

    I also am highly skeptical that the sugary cereals or high cal dessert-type yogurts or most crackers or the granola bars that are basically candy bars are eaten because people think they are healthy. They perhaps think they offer something more than a pudding or candy bar would in some cases (and they do -- more protein or fiber).

    Again, I suspect the overarching issue is that some people have this idea that if they choose "healthy" foods they can't get fat, and that's not true. Calories matter and plenty of so-called healthy foods have lots of cals. Again, nuts. I used to make a homemade trail mix with dried fruit and nuts. It was delicious. I still think it was "healthy." And it's super high cal and easy to overeat, so unless I am spending the day doing serious biking or something, I don't eat that now.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,363Member Member Posts: 3,363Member Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    It is not an epidemic, yet.

    https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c

    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.

    It's not the 28g of Ritz crackers that made anyone fat...it's eating the whole sleeve of crackers...the cheese that went on top of them and then going back for a second package of them and all of that while you were watching some 30 minute sitcom on tv.

    Even if all of the info we are given on a food product is correct if we don't control how much we eat we will get fat. No food manufacturer can make you eat the whole box. Most of us know if we are honest with ourselves that we shouldn't eat the whole box...but we have a tendency to do so. Unless we get to the bottom of those tendencies it makes no difference if the info we receive is accurate or not.

    Great point.
Sign In or Register to comment.