Katie Couric's Fed Up
Replies
-
Most people who attempt any kind of program to lose weight and maintain that loss fail, regardless of the method. There's nothing inherently harder or inferior about calorie counting.
Sure.
That doesn't change the reality that calorie counting is a hard tool to succeed with.
0 -
That's just godawful. Embarrassing, really.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You are saying otherwise.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
No, I'm not.You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult.
Losing weight is easy. All you have to do is physically limit people's access to food - weight loss is guaranteed to follow.
Losing weight by counting calories and NOT restricting access to food is hard.
Therefore counting calories, in the context of living with abundant, cheap food, is a hard tool to succeed with.
Tool + context, as it has always been.
At most, you've shown that it's easier to lose weight when you don't have access to food than when you do. And that calorie counting isn't the issue, the issue is easy access to food. Good job.
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
0 -
no I haven't looked at your diary, but did you start eating a pound of broccoli before or after you started losing weight/dieting/getting fit or whatever you want to call it. I am simply saying that sugary foods, i.e. simple sugars is what got me fat in the first place. I would think it's the case for most. Chips were my biggest obstacle. No one can eat just one!mamapeach910 wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
I think this was quoted wrong, because I definitely didn't say the above post, lol.
0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
The problem is that people have their priorities messed up. They focus on one food, macro or cultivation method. Instead it is better to learn the basics first. The number 1 priority is to become aware of total number of calories consumed. A lot of people are shocked about the calories in some foods even ones that are considered "healthy." Next you need to become aware of the macronutrients you are consuming as well as fiber. Then you can focus on consuming foods that are more micronutrient dense. Finally, if you think it is necessary you can eliminate foods that trigger you to binge as well as foods that don't agree with you or may be allergic too.
The thing is people do the opposite. They try to find that one boogeyman food first before even considering the quantity they are eating.0 -
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »
no I haven't looked at your diary, but did you start eating a pound of broccoli before or after you started losing weight/dieting/getting fit or whatever you want to call it. I am simply saying that sugary foods, i.e. simple sugars is what got me fat in the first place. I would think it's the case for most. Chips were my biggest obstacle. No one can eat just one!mamapeach910 wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
I can eat just one. It's learning self control and how to tell yourself no. These items alone do not make anyone fat. We control what goes into our bodies.0 -
Sorry! My phone is garbling up the quote nesting. I tried to edit it. Ugh!missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
I think this was quoted wrong, because I definitely didn't say the above post, lol.
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »
no I haven't looked at your diary, but did you start eating a pound of broccoli before or after you started losing weight/dieting/getting fit or whatever you want to call it. I am simply saying that sugary foods, i.e. simple sugars is what got me fat in the first place. I would think it's the case for most. Chips were my biggest obstacle. No one can eat just one!mamapeach910 wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
I can eat just one. It's learning self control and how to tell yourself no. These items alone do not make anyone fat. We control what goes into our bodies.
well yeah, I can eat just one, too, now that I'm on a diet and watching my calories.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
We're not a "typical" family. I've been a scratch cook since I was 10 years old and I make pretty much everything we eat except for when everyone else gets pizza.
So any standard analysis of the American diet wouldn't apply to us. My kids don't eat all of those things with those "hidden" sugars in them... oh, sure the yogurt and such, but I'm not terribly worried. It's not to excess.
Regarding your argument about kids? Um, aren't their parents supposed to be the ones regulating their intake? My kids asked for more sugary cereals, they were told no. It's pretty simple. The whole argument about marketing to kids always makes me shake my head because it takes parents out of the equation.
0 -
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »
no I haven't looked at your diary, but did you start eating a pound of broccoli before or after you started losing weight/dieting/getting fit or whatever you want to call it. I am simply saying that sugary foods, i.e. simple sugars is what got me fat in the first place. I would think it's the case for most. Chips were my biggest obstacle. No one can eat just one!mamapeach910 wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
I've been eating massive amounts of veggies for years.
I could only quantify the amount as a pound thanks to my food scale.
Bear in mind, I used to eat large quantities of lots of other things at various times too.
0 -
I agree with you, OP. What is fed to children too young to understand/control nutrition content, especially when outside parents' awareness/control i.e. school lunches, is an interesting aspect. Somewhat related is what incarcerated people eat, because they have no control over their selection (or medical care). Volunteering in my county jail was pretty eye opening. Hopefully other counties are a lot better than mine--the only protein is a bologna sandwich EVERY DAY. Very low protein, high simple carb. Crazy weird meal hours, too.0
-
rjmudlax13 wrote: »loganrandy69 wrote: »I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
The problem is that people have their priorities messed up. They focus on one food, macro or cultivation method. Instead it is better to learn the basics first. The number 1 priority is to become aware of total number of calories consumed. A lot of people are shocked about the calories in some foods even ones that are considered "healthy." Next you need to become aware of the macronutrients you are consuming as well as fiber. Then you can focus on consuming foods that are more micronutrient dense. Finally, if you think it is necessary you can eliminate foods that trigger you to binge as well as foods that don't agree with you or may be allergic too.
The thing it people do the opposite. They try to find that one boogeyman food first before even considering the quantity they are eating.
I think that's good advice. What did you think of the documentary?0 -
MFP is a calorie-counting system...
Most people who attempt any kind of program to lose weight and maintain that loss fail, regardless of the method. There's nothing inherently harder or inferior about calorie counting.
Sure.
That doesn't change the reality that calorie counting is a hard tool to succeed with.
No, it's not.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
We're not a "typical" family. I've been a scratch cook since I was 10 years old and I make pretty much everything we eat except for when everyone else gets pizza.
So any standard analysis of the American diet wouldn't apply to us. My kids don't eat all of those things with those "hidden" sugars in them... oh, sure the yogurt and such, but I'm not terribly worried. It's not to excess.
Regarding your argument about kids? Um, aren't their parents supposed to be the ones regulating their intake? My kids asked for more sugary cereals, they were told no. It's pretty simple. The whole argument about marketing to kids always makes me shake my head because it takes parents out of the equation.
I don't disagree that parents should hold some responsibility. But aren't there times when kids are out of the care of their parents, like at school? The documentary touches on this too. The doc starts to ask about government and corporations roles in helping children make better decisions. And what about parents who think they are making smart decisions but are also struggling too?0 -
Katie Couric's
I stopped reading right there...0 -
rjmudlax13 wrote: »loganrandy69 wrote: »I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
The problem is that people have their priorities messed up. They focus on one food, macro or cultivation method. Instead it is better to learn the basics first. The number 1 priority is to become aware of total number of calories consumed. A lot of people are shocked about the calories in some foods even ones that are considered "healthy." Next you need to become aware of the macronutrients you are consuming as well as fiber. Then you can focus on consuming foods that are more micronutrient dense. Finally, if you think it is necessary you can eliminate foods that trigger you to binge as well as foods that don't agree with you or may be allergic too.
The thing is people do the opposite. They try to find that one boogeyman food first before even considering the quantity they are eating.
This is a really, really good post.0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
How's this? I have such a connection, and so care about what I eat. Understanding CICO (which is just a fact) allows me to work within the framework of what I personally want to eat and my other goals.CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar.
CICO does nothing. It's just a fact. And the fact is that 500 calories over maintenance from "healthy," homecooked food will lead to weight gain as much as any other calories would. I gained weight this way myself in the past. That you understand how CICO works doesn't mean you must ignore other important things, like nutrition or how the food makes you feel physically.Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
Why? I lost weight by understanding the facts and figuring out how to apply them to my life. Having Katie Couric tell me how to eat would have been superior why? And why should I assume other fat people are too dumb or dysfunction to do what I did and figure out a sensible way to eat (which seems like a pretty basic human function, so the idea that most people are too helpless or stupid to do this is pretty insulting).
Personally, one reason I like logging as an alternative for people is that if you pay attention to what you eat and notice the effects on you and that eating certain foods makes it easier to eat less than others, you ought to naturally make changes that make it easier. If you don't, it's because you don't want to or don't care enough, not because you don't understand how nutrient dense foods are. Anyone who claims that they didn't know it's generally healthy to eat veggies and not so healthy to survive on fast food fries and soda and Twinkies (as the anti CICO folks so often assume we are all doing), is lying.0 -
True, CICO may be science but so are macronutrients (protein, fats, and carbs which includes sugar). You should be tracking both. The documentary points out (as well as many health sites and forum posts here on MFP) that the macronutrient imbalance can cause physiological reactions in the body.
But while the SAD is less than desirable in many ways, its macro balance is not particularly problematic or notable. It's well within the mainstream of the various macro ratios that allows for a healthy diet if we look at traditional diets (which are all over the place).
The current freak out about carbs is nothing more than our version of the freak out about fats (which I'm old enough to remember well).0 -
As I was shoveling steamed broccoli into my face last night as a snack, I was a bit ashamed at how strange it was that I like broccoli so much. Thank you for making me feel normalmamapeach910 wrote: »rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »sugar, imo, can lead to overeating if you're not careful, but that's why people are obese. Nobody wants to stuff their face with broccoli, but because ice cream, donuts, etc, are hard to eat in moderation for some folks. It was for me until I became serious about losing weight.
You obviously haven't looked at my diary. I have eaten a pound of broccoli at a time.
I REGRET NOTHING.
My family did, though.
0 -
Katie Couric also promotes antivaxxers. Given that she's anti-science, this should surprise nobody.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's just godawful. Embarrassing, really.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You are saying otherwise.DeguelloTex wrote: »Reasons for failure include more than just the method, so failure can't necessarily be traced solely to the method.
I didn't see anybody say otherwise.
Methods don't exist in isolation - in this case it's the combination of method and human nature and a context of a society full of cheap, yummy nibblies.
No, I'm not.You are saying calorie counting is arguably too difficult based on how many fail. All that shows is that losing weight apparently is difficult. That may, or may not be, because counting calories per se is too difficult.
Losing weight is easy. All you have to do is physically limit people's access to food - weight loss is guaranteed to follow.
Losing weight by counting calories and NOT restricting access to food is hard.
Therefore counting calories, in the context of living with abundant, cheap food, is a hard tool to succeed with.
Tool + context, as it has always been.
At most, you've shown that it's easier to lose weight when you don't have access to food than when you do. And that calorie counting isn't the issue, the issue is easy access to food. Good job.
So that thread you started...the one where you were looking for help in figuring out why your actual CICO results weren't matching your expected results....I lost track of it, how did that conclude? Were you able to identify the sources of error, or is there still a mismatch?
:drinker:
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »
You're presenting a false dichotomy, and that's the problem with most of these discussions. No one believes that sugary foods are meant to comprise a significant portion of someone's diet. They're treats, to be consumed in moderation.
I think that's an interesting point. The documentary goes into detail about how sugar has been added into most foods...not just treats like a snickers. So people are trying to make better decisions but are still failing because of the hidden sugars. You can say read a label but can you expect an elementary school or middle school student to know this? This is an aspect of the documentary that I found interesting.
This is the most misleading aspect of the documentary, from what I've heard. For example, someone here posted (I think from the movie) a comparison of the sugar in a WHOLE JAR of pasta sauce with a candy bar, ignoring the fact that the jar is multiple servings.
Moreover, it ignores the fact that probably few of the calories are from the demon ADDED sugar, as the basic ingredients (like tomatoes) contribute plenty of sugar. I just pulled up a serving size of Ragu "spaghetti sauce," which I assume is a pretty standard example (I wouldn't buy jarred sauce myself, because I'm snobby about stuff like that)--8 grams of sugar in a serving size. Interestingly, I just made a pasta sauce last night (included lean beef and tons of veggies, as well as tomatoes and olives). Mine included NO added sugar, and yet one serving has, well, 8 grams of sugar. Hmm. Hard to get so upset about the Ragu, then.
My view is that the claim that the calories from added sugar in these savory products plays a significant (or any) role in obesity requires a huge leap.0 -
I just watched Fed Up. It is streaming on Netflix. The documentary seems to discount CICO. Instead it advocates sugar avoidance. While I didn't disagree with avoiding sugar, as I have found when I do, I get to consume more food and fewer calories all at the same time. It did rub me the wrong way when it said calorie counting is too difficult. It did focus on childhood obesity however. It did answer one question that I have had and that is, "Why isn't there a % Daily Value for Sugar on Nutrition Facts labels?" Maybe MyFitnessPal needs find a way to get into schools.
There is a %DV on nutrition labels over here.0 -
I watched this documentary awhile back. It's actually really entertaining, even though it is crazy biased. They actually make a great case for CICO, IMO, though they loop everything back to sugar. The problem with the entire documentary is that they set out with a conclusion and then built a body of evidence around it. It's a lot of "see, we knew that would happen."
I think that films like this one can be great for starting a discussion, which I've stated on previous threads about it.
The graphics are pretty awesome, so at least there's that.
0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
I totally agree with this. *also ducks*0 -
I actually watched this documentary this morning, I thought it was very sad. Sad that America is having such issues and that they are to the terrible extent that children are having lap band surgery. What about basic nutrition education in schools, do they not do that anymore to help educate the kids?
I don't think though that it completely discounts CICO, it just helps point out how the industries involved have abused that mantra, to sell high sugar foods that have definitely had a hand in our growing diabetes epidemic. I like to treat everything I read or watch with caution.0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »I've never seen it. But I dislike the demonization of sugar. Calories are calories, and sugar does not cause obesity like the description of the documentary says. If you eat an excess of calories from fat, carbs, sugar, protein, ect over your maintenance, you will gain. I think it's just one of those fear mongering documentaries that fails to consider CICO, like you mentioned, and says common sense, like calorie counting, is too hard so don't do it.
I've always disliked strict CICO mentalities because it takes a basic truth and disregards all of the other things around it that affect that truth. There are other aspects of diet and weight loss that affect people differently. Calories in/Calories out only works (as a weight control philosophy) if you have no connection to what you are eating and how it makes you feel (both emotionally and physically).
CICO equates 500 calories in nutrient dense, high fiber food with a king size Snickers bar. The former makes you feel full and maybe even feel good about eating it to get that way. The latter doesn't do much for you nutritionally and may come with feelings of guilt and a sugar high that will cause more problems when you crash. They are not the same.
Expecting someone who has weight problems to just count calories and lose without arming them with some strategies that account for different responses people have to certain foods is doing them a disservice.
*Ducks*
I've never ever in my life experienced a sugar high/crash. And there were times where I've been eating quite a bit more than just one big snickers bar.0 -
I just watched Fed Up. It is streaming on Netflix. The documentary seems to discount CICO. Instead it advocates sugar avoidance. While I didn't disagree with avoiding sugar, as I have found when I do, I get to consume more food and fewer calories all at the same time. It did rub me the wrong way when it said calorie counting is too difficult. It did focus on childhood obesity however. It did answer one question that I have had and that is, "Why isn't there a % Daily Value for Sugar on Nutrition Facts labels?" Maybe MyFitnessPal needs find a way to get into schools.
This is a really important point. The problem isn't just sugar, but that when you consume a lot of sugar, you have to make some bad trade-offs with your calorie budget.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