Katie Couric's Fed Up
Replies
-
Do a lot of elementary schools in the US have cafeterias? Until I hit high school, if I didn't bring it with me I didn't eat. The special pizza / hot dog days once every couple months where you'd bring your $5 and get a couple slices or dogs were pretty exciting.
I went to public school in the 80's/90's and we didn't have a cafeteria in elementary or middle school. I believe there may have been some sort of meal program for lower income or at-risk kids.
In high school I had the option to buy food at the cafeteria but it was glorified stadium food. (Soft pretzels, maybe some salad, pizza, nachos, etc.) I've never had any cafeteria experience with trays, mystery meat, and spoonfuls of mashed potatoes like you see in the movies.0 -
I remember to some degree what our cafeteria food was, which was: pizza, burritoes, meatloaf w/gravy, chicken patty w/gravy, hamburger, those were my favorite and all I can remember, also included mash potatoes with gravy, french fries, veggies, fruit coctail, pudding, ice cream (only holiday times), assorted can fruits, and a half a peanut butter or butter sandwich with either milk or chocolate milk, I always got chocolate milk. This was in the 70's. To me this is a good nutritional lunches and they always filled me up.0
-
I saw the documentary!
I think they did tend to scapegoat sugar a bit, but what I got from it that people don't realize where the extra calories are coming from. Or that the low-fat dressing has maybe 10 fewer calories but less satiating fat and more (or added) sugar to make up for textural and taste issues.
It certainly doesn't refute calories in / calories out, and in fact point out some shortcomings in the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign, in that you'd have to play in the park for a while to offset one or two regular sodas.
So they're saying that "eat less move more" is deceptive because while true, the extent to which you have to move and the things you needs to eat less of are not made clear.
For me personally, if I eat a sleeve of Starburst instead of the equivalent amount of chicken breast in terms of calories, I'm going to have a very different day. Miserable, and crazy hungry. Even though yes, CICO.0 -
I remember to some degree what our cafeteria food was, which was: pizza, burritoes, meatloaf w/gravy, chicken patty w/gravy, hamburger, those were my favorite and all I can remember, also included mash potatoes with gravy, french fries, veggies, fruit coctail, pudding, ice cream (only holiday times), assorted can fruits, and a half a peanut butter or butter sandwich with either milk or chocolate milk, I always got chocolate milk. This was in the 70's. To me this is a good nutritional lunches and they always filled me up.
Ah yes! I do remember that we could buy milk in elementary school. Presumably because our lunches weren't refrigerated so that was the one thing you would need chilled. I would always get chocolate milk.0 -
Do a lot of elementary schools in the US have cafeterias? Until I hit high school, if I didn't bring it with me I didn't eat. The special pizza / hot dog days once every couple months where you'd bring your $5 and get a couple slices or dogs were pretty exciting.
The only schools that don't have a cafeteria/hot lunch program in our area are a couple of private schools. All the public schools do though. This week at our local elementary school the kids will be eating a chicken patty with bun, mini corn dogs, sloppy joe with bun, beef pepperoni calzone and then Friday is a hotdog with bun. Sides for the week are veggies, baked beans, Sun chips and fries. I have one kid who will want the sloppy joe, but otherwise my kids will be bringing in lunches this week. It's also $2 per lunch, which is a bit ridiculous for what they get.0 -
Chef-enhanced school meals are a big hit.0
-
Danielle_Husband wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.
I should clarify that the film claims that CICO is BS, but the evidence provided actually supports CICO if interpreted without bias. The whole premise of the film is that sugar is the cause of obesity and that people are powerless to lose weight if they are consuming processed items containing sugar because of the way that sugar supposedly impacts the body. Additionally, sugar allegedly leads people to consume extra food.
Eh, I'm going to have to finally watch this darn thing, aren't I? If only to be able to really discuss it and because I am curious about your take on it.0 -
You know what? I would watch a documentary on MFP users. Can someone Kickstart that?0
-
Do a lot of elementary schools in the US have cafeterias? Until I hit high school, if I didn't bring it with me I didn't eat. The special pizza / hot dog days once every couple months where you'd bring your $5 and get a couple slices or dogs were pretty exciting.
Yes, I'd assume most do. All the ones I attended did (although I brought my lunch).
They are a big deal in my local school district (also breakfasts), because such a high percentage of kids in public school here are below poverty level (another issue).
When you look at the menus they seem designed for kids to enjoy--which may well be a good thing--but I know they supposedly consider nutrition, so without seeing more about precisely what they contain and how it was decided I am not convinced that the lunches here are so terrible. (Ours were okay--not super healthy, not terrible. And as a kid I wouldn't have eaten the parts I didn't like anyway. Not at school. I did at home.)0 -
The two weeks since then, I've lost 1.43 and 1.76 against an expected 1.70. (I cut my deficit down from 2.0 a week to transition more slowly into maintenance before a bulk.) This week, I'm a projected 1.98 down against 1.70, but that's skewed a little since my calorie heavy days aren't all in the spreadsheet yet.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:
I believe that most of the source of the error was buying higher quality chicken breasts that were on sale and that had less liquid added, so the precooked weight was much closer to the cooked weight than the chicken breasts I had been using. Basically, I was starting with more chicken and less water than what I'd been counting before. Once I started using cooked weights, things pretty much fell back into place.
I'm still not sure why you want to treat a problem that has multiple variables as if one variable is the source of the failure, though.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Danielle_Husband wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.
I should clarify that the film claims that CICO is BS, but the evidence provided actually supports CICO if interpreted without bias. The whole premise of the film is that sugar is the cause of obesity and that people are powerless to lose weight if they are consuming processed items containing sugar because of the way that sugar supposedly impacts the body. Additionally, sugar allegedly leads people to consume extra food.
Eh, I'm going to have to finally watch this darn thing, aren't I? If only to be able to really discuss it and because I am curious about your take on it.
I hated it. I watched it when it first came out and all I can remember was a whole bunch of portrayals of fat, clueless, mostly poor parents trying to help their obese children who are crying in every other clip obviously in pain... yeah, not a fan.
0 -
keithcw_the_first wrote: »I saw the documentary!
I think they did tend to scapegoat sugar a bit, but what I got from it that people don't realize where the extra calories are coming from. Or that the low-fat dressing has maybe 10 fewer calories but less satiating fat and more (or added) sugar to make up for textural and taste issues.
It certainly doesn't refute calories in / calories out, and in fact point out some shortcomings in the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign, in that you'd have to play in the park for a while to offset one or two regular sodas.
So they're saying that "eat less move more" is deceptive because while true, the extent to which you have to move and the things you needs to eat less of are not made clear.
For me personally, if I eat a sleeve of Starburst instead of the equivalent amount of chicken breast in terms of calories, I'm going to have a very different day. Miserable, and crazy hungry. Even though yes, CICO.
That is an excellent observation.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Danielle_Husband wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.
I should clarify that the film claims that CICO is BS, but the evidence provided actually supports CICO if interpreted without bias. The whole premise of the film is that sugar is the cause of obesity and that people are powerless to lose weight if they are consuming processed items containing sugar because of the way that sugar supposedly impacts the body. Additionally, sugar allegedly leads people to consume extra food.
Eh, I'm going to have to finally watch this darn thing, aren't I? If only to be able to really discuss it and because I am curious about your take on it.
I hated it. I watched it when it first came out and all I can remember was a whole bunch of portrayals of fat, clueless, mostly poor parents trying to help their obese children who are crying in every other clip obviously in pain... yeah, not a fan.
Yes, I felt really bad for the kids. Like the little girl who swam! She had been struggling for years and was being active in the ways she knew. Or the kid who was 400 lbs and just sounded so depressed when he was interviewed.0 -
Why would anyone want to take advice from someone who thinks counting is hard? My four year old can count and is learning to deal with 4-digit numbers. Perhaps she should go back to elementary school instead of making documentaries.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.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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'm tired of hearing calories are calories. Obviously if one consumes more calories then burns he will gain weight, but there is growing data showing that the form one takes in calories can have significant impact on metabolism. mI'm talking about things from gut bacteria which can impact health to a study which pointed to a high fat diet can change how muscles burn and store glucose after consuming high fat for just 5 days.
How one gets his calories matters very much to health and it does matter from weight loss stand point too. In other terms eating 400 calories in pears is not the same thing as eating 400 calories of high fructose corn syrup and no scientist would say they are equivalent.0 -
I'm curious how I lost 120 pounds then and have kept it off for 7 months now!! LOL, I must be some kind of miracle!!! The dumbest thing I have ever heard of, lol.Danielle_Husband wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Well I started this thread to discuss if this documentary succeeds at discussing the facts.
I pointed out in another post one way I think it's misleading.The documentary isn't telling you what to eat. If anything it's telling you what not to eat but even that isnt its main point.
Well, that's even worse. But my comment was about this statement re CICO and why the movie might be right in dismissing it (although Danielle says it doesn't really if you pay attention, despite it's intentions, perhaps): "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."
That's what I was disagreeing with.
The strategy that will be successful will presumably differ from person to person, BECAUSE we have various feelings about food (as was claimed). I'm not a moron, so I can figure out a strategy that works, so the claim that I can't be expected to do that--or that anyone else cannot--seems obviously false. Confusing the issue by deciding that the facts might not encourage "correct" behavior as Couric or someone else sees it, so instead scaremongering about sugar is not helpful. It's why we get endless posts here about "sugar is a devil!" or "if I eat one gummy bear, will I still lose weight?" Call me an idealist, but I think knowing the facts is a better place to start, not scare tactics.it's message is more a question of if people are being deceived and/or misinformed.
I don't see how we are. People don't eat too much because they are "misinformed" and think Big Macs are the ideal staple food. Nor are people fat because there's a little added sugar (and a good bit of "natural" sugar) in jarred tomato sauces, as well as many homemade versions. People eat too much because food is cheap and easily available, it's often easier to go for convenience over cooking, and--especially--we are too darn sedentary as a society.You also said anyone who doesn't know what foods are healthy is lying. Does a 4 year old? An 8 year old? A 15 year old?
I think the basics are probably obvious to someone by 8, at the latest. More significantly, their parents should be deciding what they eat if they are young enough not to know. (And probably well after they do--I didn't get to decide what I ate freely until I had money to buy it, and even then main meals were at home until I was in college most of the time. As a result, fast food and soda was pretty rare when I was a kid. Yeah, I'm old, but that's how my friends with children today seem to be dealing with it too.)
Around here I know the foods available in schools--while intended to appeal to kids--are if anything more nutritionally sound than when I was a kid. And it seems like nutritional education is more common--MyPlate, eat less/move more and all that.
I should clarify that the film claims that CICO is BS, but the evidence provided actually supports CICO if interpreted without bias. The whole premise of the film is that sugar is the cause of obesity and that people are powerless to lose weight if they are consuming processed items containing sugar because of the way that sugar supposedly impacts the body. Additionally, sugar allegedly leads people to consume extra food.
I heard that! I try to tell people that of all the trillion diets out there, what do they ALL have in common? Eat less, move more. PERIOD!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
For more discussion see this thread:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10150081/fed-up-documentary0 -
the kids are overweight because they eat too much and sit around and play video games all day, instead of running and playing outside like kids used to do before getting called to supper by their mamas and eating a good meal. IMHO!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
keithcw_the_first wrote: »I saw the documentary!
I think they did tend to scapegoat sugar a bit, but what I got from it that people don't realize where the extra calories are coming from. Or that the low-fat dressing has maybe 10 fewer calories but less satiating fat and more (or added) sugar to make up for textural and taste issues.
It certainly doesn't refute calories in / calories out, and in fact point out some shortcomings in the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign, in that you'd have to play in the park for a while to offset one or two regular sodas.
So they're saying that "eat less move more" is deceptive because while true, the extent to which you have to move and the things you needs to eat less of are not made clear.
For me personally, if I eat a sleeve of Starburst instead of the equivalent amount of chicken breast in terms of calories, I'm going to have a very different day. Miserable, and crazy hungry. Even though yes, CICO.
That is an excellent observation.
This is why people say, "You can't outrun a bad diet." Exercise is good for a number of reasons, but you don't need to to lose weight.
That's why it's eat less AND move more, not just move more.
I, personally, think the criticism of Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" and healthier school lunches campaigns have less to do with them being unsound and more to do with other things. Yes, you'd have to go to the park for a decent period of time to offset one or two sodas, but I think the point is more that kids should be moving more than they are now, not necessarily to "burn off" anything but to just move.
0 -
I finally watched it. I don't think we should blame the food industry, but I can see the argument for saying that people who eat mostly processed foods are setting themselves up for obesity, or at least a very hard struggle to stay away from it.0
-
when did Katie Couric become an authority on nutrition????0
-
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.
overeating all foods leads to obesity ..not sugar …
you can restrict sugar, over eat, and be obese….0 -
-
What? Katie Couric is behind Fed Up? Even worse, lol.0
-
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.
overeating all foods leads to obesity ..not sugar …
you can restrict sugar, over eat, and be obese….
Yes, but it's much harder to over eat broccoli and lettuce than it is to overeat ice cream and chips ahoy.0 -
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.
overeating all foods leads to obesity ..not sugar …
you can restrict sugar, over eat, and be obese….
Yes, but it's much harder to over eat broccoli and lettuce than it is to overeat ice cream and chips ahoy.
when did I say anything about over eating on broccoli?
Is broccoli the only low sugar food out there …?
what if you like steak and bacon, or will would that not fit into your pre set dogma about sugar being the cause of all evil on earth ..?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
- 427 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