Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Fed Up: documentary

12346

Replies

  • bmeadows380bmeadows380 Posts: 1,234Member Member Posts: 1,234Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Thanks for posting this. I agree with a lot of what you said here.

    The main theme that stuck out in the documentary was that the parents of the children featured weee being told that the solution to their child's obesity was CICO. The kids were eating too much and not burning enough. The documentary wanted to address one portion of why CICo may not be the entire problem/solution for the families featured and how the food industry may share some blame.

    When you see the young girl in n the documentary who was practicing with her swim team and jogging with her family a few times a week, making food choices she thought were good, and couldn't lose weight, it makes me think there is something else at large going on.

    Does the documentary.make some sweeping statements? Yes. Are they 100% true? No. Is there something more to the types of food we perceive as healthy which may not be healthy for everyone? I think so.

    Bottom line: telling families they just have to practice CICO and it will solve their obesity problems is not a solution.

    The bolded is a bit misleading imo. Making good choices is a good thing. Making good choices in the correct amounts is another. My diet is loaded with lots that is considered bad from donuts and cereal to twinkies, alongside a lot of stuff considered good by most camps.

    I just don't over eat and maintain at ~180lbs pretty easily.

    I agree - portion size is everything, and most people are especially poor judges at what constitutes a portion size.

    For instance: my local grocery store sells apples in two sizes, one called lunchbox size and the other called regular. The USDA's website shows that for 100g, an apple has 52 calories; at 154g that goes up to 80 calories. How many people would be able to eyeball the two apples side by side and realize just how much of a calorie difference that is? And we're talking about something rather calorie low to begin with. There are some things that just a little bit more can equate to a huge difference in calorie content, such as peanut butter or almonds.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,389Member Member Posts: 3,389Member Member
    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.

    Are you saying that if you ate (for example) 2000 cal a day without a donut you would maintain, but 2000 cal a day and included in those cals 1 donut a week you would gain? That makes no sense.

    Or are you saying you'd overeat if you occasionally ate a donut?

    [Edit, never mind, I see you answered already.]
    edited July 11
  • LyndaBSSLyndaBSS Posts: 5,920Member, Premium Member Posts: 5,920Member, Premium Member
    aidydh wrote: »
    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.

    We are all unique. Foods affect us in different ways. None of us are the problem. We are all the solution. We just have to figure out our idiosyncrasies and respond accordingly.
  • PhirrgusPhirrgus Posts: 1,904Member Member Posts: 1,904Member Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    Thanks for posting this. I agree with a lot of what you said here.

    The main theme that stuck out in the documentary was that the parents of the children featured weee being told that the solution to their child's obesity was CICO. The kids were eating too much and not burning enough. The documentary wanted to address one portion of why CICo may not be the entire problem/solution for the families featured and how the food industry may share some blame.

    When you see the young girl in n the documentary who was practicing with her swim team and jogging with her family a few times a week, making food choices she thought were good, and couldn't lose weight, it makes me think there is something else at large going on.

    Does the documentary.make some sweeping statements? Yes. Are they 100% true? No. Is there something more to the types of food we perceive as healthy which may not be healthy for everyone? I think so.

    Bottom line: telling families they just have to practice CICO and it will solve their obesity problems is not a solution.

    The bolded is a bit misleading imo. Making good choices is a good thing. Making good choices in the correct amounts is another. My diet is loaded with lots that is considered bad from donuts and cereal to twinkies, alongside a lot of stuff considered good by most camps.

    I just don't over eat and maintain at ~180lbs pretty easily.

    I agree - portion size is everything, and most people are especially poor judges at what constitutes a portion size.

    For instance: my local grocery store sells apples in two sizes, one called lunchbox size and the other called regular. The USDA's website shows that for 100g, an apple has 52 calories; at 154g that goes up to 80 calories. How many people would be able to eyeball the two apples side by side and realize just how much of a calorie difference that is? And we're talking about something rather calorie low to begin with. There are some things that just a little bit more can equate to a huge difference in calorie content, such as peanut butter or almonds.

    Yep. Peanut butter is usually my go to example because who is REALLY satisfied with a level tablespoon? Even a "responsible" amount spread out on a slice of bread can actually equal out to 2 or 3 servings, which, depending on brand, could easily add ~380 calories but still look thin on the bread.

    Good point.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,389Member Member Posts: 3,389Member Member
    aidydh wrote: »
    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?

    Here's why I can't eat donuts:

    I have a problem with maintaining being satiated. So if CICO is the way to lose weight, I need to watch my calorie totals every day. If I eat a plain, raised donut, that's about 200-250 calories total. This is about equal to how many calories I eat for breakfast every morning. My breakfast of an egg scramble made with veggies, half a whole wheat bagel, and some blueberries will keep me satiated for a couple hours until my mid-morning snack. If I eat the donut instead, I won't even feel full 30-60 minutes afterward. I will need to eat again before my morning snack and consume extra calories. Those extra calories are now cutting into my calorie total for the day so I have to make it up elsewhere. I will have to cut back on dinner somehow or skip a snack which affects my hunger pains. If I keep eating as I have planned for the day, with the added donut, I will run out of calories remaining for the rest of the day. Then I'm stuck at the end of the day with no calories left and I have two choices: I can suffer through the stabbing hunger pains or I can eat something. That will push me over my daily calorie goals and then that's a day wasted of possible progress with CICO.

    I'm sure you're thinking, "those hunger pains can't be that bad." When you feel hunger pains like a knife stabbing your intestines, yes, they are that bad. They don't go away unless I eat. And no, my doctor hasn't found anything "wrong" medically.

    Ergo, I can't eat donuts unless I want to waste a day of possible progress. And from the trend of what I have seen over the last two years, even one or two days a week of being over will stall me out indefinitely.

    Just because it hasn't been your experience with food and fitness, doesn't invalidate the experience.

    It does sound to me like you have some kind of mental thing about being hungry. Human beings evolved in situations where we went without food for much longer periods of time, after all. However, I totally agree that eating in a way that keeps you hungry all the time wouldn't work. I made sure I ate in a way I found filling too (and still do).

    But that aside, you can choose what else you eat and when to eat the donut. I don't really like donuts, but if I had one for breakfast I'd probably be hungry before lunch too (although I'd ignore it or maybe just eat some veg or a pickle or a couple of clementines if it were really all that bad).

    But when I was losing weight, I would occasionally do something like this:

    2 eggs omelet with lots of veg, a little feta, some cottage cheese or (gasp!) plain greek yogurt. Very filling.

    Lunch -- big salad with some kind of protein on it. Probably some kind of fruit with it.

    Dinner -- protein, moderate portion of a starchy side, and lots of veg.

    Post-dinner dessert -- 200 or 250 cal of ice cream.

    What I find puzzling is the idea that if you choose foods that leave you hungry that means the "unhealthy" foods made you fat. Why wouldn't you choose something else the next day or, again, fill up on lower cal foods, like add a bunch more veg to your meals or snacks? I suspect the real answer for most gaining weight is that they are not actually paying attention to how much they eat or calories.
    edited July 11
  • FibroHikerFibroHiker Posts: 268Member Member Posts: 268Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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.

    Yes
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 12,198Member Member Posts: 12,198Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not sure that's true (well, I'm not doubting your skepticism, I'm just not 100% sharing it ;) ). Part of the issue is that not a lot of very hard thinking is even happening in a lot of cases (I think). That's where the advertising positioning issue kind of sneaks in, IMO. (Note: I still don't think advertising is a nefarious conspiracy. Being easily fooled is still our own baby-feline fault, IMO.)

    I posted these two images on another thread (which I'll link below):

    afyshrb1l4lw.jpg

    zl4up63ida1c.jpg

    (Thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/42155959#Comment_42155959).

    I think if you asked a lot of people which of those two was "healthier", many would pick the Belvita, but I don't think the factual case is very persuasive. It's gotta be about the advertising positioning, and a lack of label-reading.

    There's also stuff like this (which will be paywalled for anyone who's read their monthly quota of free articles already - sorry):

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/05/upshot/is-sushi-healthy-what-about-granola-where-americans-and-nutritionists-disagree.html

    The problem is not the known unknowns, it's the unknown unknowns or maybe "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." (No, the latter's not Mark Twain ;) . . . but the "unknown unknowns" really was Donald Rumsfeld ;) ).
  • FibroHikerFibroHiker Posts: 268Member Member Posts: 268Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    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?

    Here's why I can't eat donuts:

    I have a problem with maintaining being satiated. So if CICO is the way to lose weight, I need to watch my calorie totals every day. If I eat a plain, raised donut, that's about 200-250 calories total. This is about equal to how many calories I eat for breakfast every morning. My breakfast of an egg scramble made with veggies, half a whole wheat bagel, and some blueberries will keep me satiated for a couple hours until my mid-morning snack. If I eat the donut instead, I won't even feel full 30-60 minutes afterward. I will need to eat again before my morning snack and consume extra calories. Those extra calories are now cutting into my calorie total for the day so I have to make it up elsewhere. I will have to cut back on dinner somehow or skip a snack which affects my hunger pains. If I keep eating as I have planned for the day, with the added donut, I will run out of calories remaining for the rest of the day. Then I'm stuck at the end of the day with no calories left and I have two choices: I can suffer through the stabbing hunger pains or I can eat something. That will push me over my daily calorie goals and then that's a day wasted of possible progress with CICO.

    I'm sure you're thinking, "those hunger pains can't be that bad." When you feel hunger pains like a knife stabbing your intestines, yes, they are that bad. They don't go away unless I eat. And no, my doctor hasn't found anything "wrong" medically.

    Ergo, I can't eat donuts unless I want to waste a day of possible progress. And from the trend of what I have seen over the last two years, even one or two days a week of being over will stall me out indefinitely.

    Just because it hasn't been your experience with food and fitness, doesn't invalidate the experience.

    It does sound to me like you have some kind of mental thing about being hungry. Human beings evolved in situations where we went without food for much longer periods of time, after all. However, I totally agree that eating in a way that keeps you hungry all the time wouldn't work. I made sure I ate in a way I found filling too (and still do).

    But that aside, you can choose what else you eat and when to eat the donut. I don't really like donuts, but if I had one for breakfast I'd probably be hungry before lunch too (although I'd ignore it or maybe just eat some veg or a pickle or a couple of clementines if it were really all that bad).

    But when I was losing weight, I would occasionally do something like this:

    2 eggs omelet with lots of veg, a little feta, some cottage cheese or (gasp!) plain greek yogurt. Very filling.

    Lunch -- big salad with some kind of protein on it. Probably some kind of fruit with it.

    Dinner -- protein, moderate portion of a starchy side, and lots of veg.

    Post-dinner dessert -- 200 or 250 cal of ice cream.

    What I find puzzling is the idea that if you choose foods that leave you hungry that means the "unhealthy" foods made you fat. Why wouldn't you choose something else the next day or, again, fill up on lower cal foods, like add a bunch more veg to your meals or snacks? I suspect the real answer for most gaining weight is that they are not actually paying attention to how much they eat or calories.

    No, it's not a "mental thing," it is an actual physical experience.
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,106Member Member Posts: 6,106Member Member
    aidydh wrote: »
    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....


    About 10 years ago I would have been echoing everything you've said here. I would have been right along with you telling people that if they were fat it was they couldn't control themselves. What changed for me was that my experience changed.

    I can no longer consume the foods I mentioned and maintain my weight. My weight has climbed steadily up and up over the last two years. I keep cutting back and cutting back and it doesn't help. There is no way I could eat those foods now and expect to lose weight.

    Just because it isn't your experience, doesn't invalidate the experience.

    For a long time in my 30s I didn't have to watch my calorie intake. I didn't log my foods, I exercised three times a week, ate what I thought was relatively healthy, and maintained my physique. There is absolutely no way I could live like that now.

    Your experience changed because your behavior changed, but as you weren't tracking this behavior, you weren't aware of the change.


    For a long time in my 30s I didn't have to watch my spending. I didn't balance my checkbook. I worked 3 times a week, spent what I thought was manageable, and maintained my finances. Note that at no time did I ever know what my income was, what my spending was.

    Sounds absurd when described in finance. Basically this is describing a process that was not managed and ended up badly, as expected.

    Your experience is framed by your perception. There is no validity involved.
  • FibroHikerFibroHiker Posts: 268Member Member Posts: 268Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    aidydh wrote: »
    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....


    About 10 years ago I would have been echoing everything you've said here. I would have been right along with you telling people that if they were fat it was they couldn't control themselves. What changed for me was that my experience changed.

    I can no longer consume the foods I mentioned and maintain my weight. My weight has climbed steadily up and up over the last two years. I keep cutting back and cutting back and it doesn't help. There is no way I could eat those foods now and expect to lose weight.

    Just because it isn't your experience, doesn't invalidate the experience.

    For a long time in my 30s I didn't have to watch my calorie intake. I didn't log my foods, I exercised three times a week, ate what I thought was relatively healthy, and maintained my physique. There is absolutely no way I could live like that now.

    Your experience changed because your behavior changed, but as you weren't tracking this behavior, you weren't aware of the change.


    For a long time in my 30s I didn't have to watch my spending. I didn't balance my checkbook. I worked 3 times a week, spent what I thought was manageable, and maintained my finances. Note that at no time did I ever know what my income was, what my spending was.

    Sounds absurd when described in finance. Basically this is describing a process that was not managed and ended up badly, as expected.

    Your experience is framed by your perception. There is no validity involved.

    I see your point. I just know that if I ate the same types of foods that I did at that time, the same amounts, and did the same amount of exercise, the likelihood that I would gain weight is very high. It's because when I put those foods into a calculator now the intake is much more that I would expend in a day even with the same exercise expenditure. Am I wiling to test it out just to prove a point? No.
  • FibroHikerFibroHiker Posts: 268Member Member Posts: 268Member Member
    I love the discussion here on this thread.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 12,198Member Member Posts: 12,198Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I think if you asked a lot of people which of those two was "healthier", many would pick the Belvita, but I don't think the factual case is very persuasive. It's gotta be about the advertising positioning, and a lack of label-reading.

    I will concede that there are some foods that are believed to be more nutrient dense than they are, and that many people (as I said above) confuse "healthy" with "low cal" or even -- this food cannot make me fat. We see that here all the time, when people ask if cheese will make them fat or bread or protein powder. I don't get that way of thinking, it seems so illogical, it makes me want to bang my head against the wall, but it seems to be a thing.

    Unfortunately, I think movies like FedUp contribute to that overall confusion and lack of logic by again telling you that it's about picking the right foods and avoiding the bad ones, and it's not really because you ate too darn much for your activity level.

    <arbitrary snip of more good stuff for reply length>

    One thing I find frustrating about movies like FedUp and the "don't worry, it's not your fault, the advertisers made you fat" thing is that there's not a lot of evidence that the average American is really trying hard to eat a super healthy diet but messing up because they believe Lean Hot Pockets will protect them from obesity.

    If you look at surveys about what the average American eats (which probably include some degree of people reporting a healthier diet than they really eat), the average American eats quite poorly, very few veg, a high amount of sugary treats and snack foods high in added salt and fat, lots of fast food, etc. And way too many cals.

    <More snip, mostly keeping bits about the thread's main topic . . . >

    I couldn't agree more with all of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.