Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fed Up: documentary
Replies
-
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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But isn't this precisely my point? The types of food we eat definitely plays a role into the obesity rate. When Japanese and Chinese citizens began consuming more processed foods, and more foods from the West, that was when their obesity rates began to climb.
I don't have any adgenda other seeking out sources of information. I find it interesting that so many people are quick to diss a possible source of information so quickly as being meaningless without checking it out first.
But what happened to the quantity of food they consumed over that same span?
Correlation is not causality.
No, correlation is not causality. But is there an idea on the documentary that should be explored and investigated further due to the correlation?9 -
Never mind, I see you answered my question in a subsequent post, so I will address the subsequent post.0
-
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
I might be mixing up the various documentaries, but I believe the example in the movie is that some woman was choosing Lean Hot Pockets but not realizing that the amount they were consuming still had a bunch of calories or something? I'm sorry, but the fact it's called "lean" (which accurately reflects the fact that it's lower cal than regular hot pockets) doesn't mean that woman was tricked into thinking that it was a nutritious balanced meal. I really don't think the basics of nutrition are that hard, and the fact that it's basically vegetable free (there are some jalapeno ones, I guess) and it's white bread filled with cheese and a little bit of ham or whatever should make it not that hard to figure out.
I don't find Hot Pockets appealing, but it's also possible to eat a healthy balanced diet that includes them. Basing your diet on them (or soda or sweets or any mix of snack foods) is 100% an example of making a bad choice. People don't do that because they don't know better, they do that because they want to for other reasons (same with people who just refuse to eat veg or eat a bunch of high cal foods between meals or whatever it is).5 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.5 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
I might be mixing up the various documentaries, but I believe the example in the movie is that some woman was choosing Lean Hot Pockets but not realizing that the amount they were consuming still had a bunch of calories or something? I'm sorry, but the fact it's called "lean" (which accurately reflects the fact that it's lower cal than regular hot pockets) doesn't mean that woman was tricked into thinking that it was a nutritious balanced meal. I really don't think the basics of nutrition are that hard, and the fact that it's basically vegetable free (there are some jalapeno ones, I guess) and it's white bread filled with cheese and a little bit of ham or whatever should make it not that hard to figure out.
I don't find Hot Pockets appealing, but it's also possible to eat a healthy balanced diet that includes them. Basing your diet on them is precisely making a bad choice.
I had a Pepperoni Pizza Lean Pocket with my dinner last night! But I also had chili beans and a yellow squash. Anyway, it fit in my calories, and the dinner as a whole filled me up quite nicely. And none of the foods I ate were special "health" foods, I shop in a small town Food Lion 95% of the time. I ate Lean Pockets, Oreos, and Toaster Strudels while I was losing and now that I'm maintaining. But I also ate veggies and beans and fibrous grains because I took a tiny little bit of initiative and learned what good stuff I wanted to include in my diet. I still sometimes eat one food because I think it's "better" than another, and sometimes I find out later that I was wrong. But as long as my calories are in line, so is my weight.10 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
I might be mixing up the various documentaries, but I believe the example in the movie is that some woman was choosing Lean Hot Pockets but not realizing that the amount they were consuming still had a bunch of calories or something? I'm sorry, but the fact it's called "lean" (which accurately reflects the fact that it's lower cal than regular hot pockets) doesn't mean that woman was tricked into thinking that it was a nutritious balanced meal. I really don't think the basics of nutrition are that hard, and the fact that it's basically vegetable free (there are some jalapeno ones, I guess) and it's white bread filled with cheese and a little bit of ham or whatever should make it not that hard to figure out.
I don't find Hot Pockets appealing, but it's also possible to eat a healthy balanced diet that includes them. Basing your diet on them is precisely making a bad choice.
I had a Pepperoni Pizza Lean Pocket with my dinner last night! But I also had chili beans and a yellow squash. Anyway, it fit in my calories, and the dinner as a whole filled me up quite nicely. And none of the foods I ate were special "health" foods, I shop in a small town Food Lion 95% of the time. I ate Lean Pockets, Oreos, and Toaster Strudels while I was losing and now that I'm maintaining. But I also ate veggies and beans and fibrous grains because I took a tiny little bit of initiative and learned what good stuff I wanted to include in my diet. I still sometimes eat one food because I think it's "better" than another, and sometimes I find out later that I was wrong. But as long as my calories are in line, so is my weight.
My sister likes Hot Pockets (not sure what kind she eats, probably the lean ones), and eats them sometimes, and shockingly she also eats a pretty good overall diet and has never been overweight. (On the other hand, as mentioned, I do not like them, and don't eat most of the kinds of foods that Fed UP is on about, and yet I was obese at one point. Hmm.)6 -
Any documentary is biased to the agenda they are trying to achieve. There aren't many that OBJECTIVELY look at the opposing view. There is no obesity epidemic in Asian countries. And they eat processed foods, rice, sugar, etc. They just don't eat to damn much.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6209725/
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight0 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
I might be mixing up the various documentaries, but I believe the example in the movie is that some woman was choosing Lean Hot Pockets but not realizing that the amount they were consuming still had a bunch of calories or something? I'm sorry, but the fact it's called "lean" (which accurately reflects the fact that it's lower cal than regular hot pockets) doesn't mean that woman was tricked into thinking that it was a nutritious balanced meal. I really don't think the basics of nutrition are that hard, and the fact that it's basically vegetable free (there are some jalapeno ones, I guess) and it's white bread filled with cheese and a little bit of ham or whatever should make it not that hard to figure out.
I don't find Hot Pockets appealing, but it's also possible to eat a healthy balanced diet that includes them. Basing your diet on them is precisely making a bad choice.
I had a Pepperoni Pizza Lean Pocket with my dinner last night! But I also had chili beans and a yellow squash. Anyway, it fit in my calories, and the dinner as a whole filled me up quite nicely. And none of the foods I ate were special "health" foods, I shop in a small town Food Lion 95% of the time. I ate Lean Pockets, Oreos, and Toaster Strudels while I was losing and now that I'm maintaining. But I also ate veggies and beans and fibrous grains because I took a tiny little bit of initiative and learned what good stuff I wanted to include in my diet. I still sometimes eat one food because I think it's "better" than another, and sometimes I find out later that I was wrong. But as long as my calories are in line, so is my weight.
My sister likes Hot Pockets (not sure what kind she eats, probably the lean ones), and eats them sometimes, and shockingly she also eats a pretty good overall diet and has never been overweight. (On the other hand, as mentioned, I do not like them, and don't eat most of the kinds of foods that Fed UP is on about, and yet I was obese at one point. Hmm.)
The weight that I gained, only about 10lbs this time, about 19lbs the first time around) was all whole food, natural, non this and that blah blah.
But I didn't know of that wondrous exercise routine known as the plate push aways and fork put me downs...:)8 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
I might be mixing up the various documentaries, but I believe the example in the movie is that some woman was choosing Lean Hot Pockets but not realizing that the amount they were consuming still had a bunch of calories or something? I'm sorry, but the fact it's called "lean" (which accurately reflects the fact that it's lower cal than regular hot pockets) doesn't mean that woman was tricked into thinking that it was a nutritious balanced meal. I really don't think the basics of nutrition are that hard, and the fact that it's basically vegetable free (there are some jalapeno ones, I guess) and it's white bread filled with cheese and a little bit of ham or whatever should make it not that hard to figure out.
I don't find Hot Pockets appealing, but it's also possible to eat a healthy balanced diet that includes them. Basing your diet on them is precisely making a bad choice.
I had a Pepperoni Pizza Lean Pocket with my dinner last night! But I also had chili beans and a yellow squash. Anyway, it fit in my calories, and the dinner as a whole filled me up quite nicely. And none of the foods I ate were special "health" foods, I shop in a small town Food Lion 95% of the time. I ate Lean Pockets, Oreos, and Toaster Strudels while I was losing and now that I'm maintaining. But I also ate veggies and beans and fibrous grains because I took a tiny little bit of initiative and learned what good stuff I wanted to include in my diet. I still sometimes eat one food because I think it's "better" than another, and sometimes I find out later that I was wrong. But as long as my calories are in line, so is my weight.
My sister likes Hot Pockets (not sure what kind she eats, probably the lean ones), and eats them sometimes, and shockingly she also eats a pretty good overall diet and has never been overweight. (On the other hand, as mentioned, I do not like them, and don't eat most of the kinds of foods that Fed UP is on about, and yet I was obese at one point. Hmm.)
The weight that I gained, only about 10lbs this time, about 19lbs the first time around) was all whole food, natural, non this and that blah blah.
But I didn't know of that wondrous exercise routine known as the plate push aways and fork put me downs...:)
And it's best to focus first on the plate push-aways, because a lot of foods (including Hot Pockets) require no fork9 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
I might be mixing up the various documentaries, but I believe the example in the movie is that some woman was choosing Lean Hot Pockets but not realizing that the amount they were consuming still had a bunch of calories or something? I'm sorry, but the fact it's called "lean" (which accurately reflects the fact that it's lower cal than regular hot pockets) doesn't mean that woman was tricked into thinking that it was a nutritious balanced meal. I really don't think the basics of nutrition are that hard, and the fact that it's basically vegetable free (there are some jalapeno ones, I guess) and it's white bread filled with cheese and a little bit of ham or whatever should make it not that hard to figure out.
I don't find Hot Pockets appealing, but it's also possible to eat a healthy balanced diet that includes them. Basing your diet on them is precisely making a bad choice.
I had a Pepperoni Pizza Lean Pocket with my dinner last night! But I also had chili beans and a yellow squash. Anyway, it fit in my calories, and the dinner as a whole filled me up quite nicely. And none of the foods I ate were special "health" foods, I shop in a small town Food Lion 95% of the time. I ate Lean Pockets, Oreos, and Toaster Strudels while I was losing and now that I'm maintaining. But I also ate veggies and beans and fibrous grains because I took a tiny little bit of initiative and learned what good stuff I wanted to include in my diet. I still sometimes eat one food because I think it's "better" than another, and sometimes I find out later that I was wrong. But as long as my calories are in line, so is my weight.
My sister likes Hot Pockets (not sure what kind she eats, probably the lean ones), and eats them sometimes, and shockingly she also eats a pretty good overall diet and has never been overweight. (On the other hand, as mentioned, I do not like them, and don't eat most of the kinds of foods that Fed UP is on about, and yet I was obese at one point. Hmm.)
The weight that I gained, only about 10lbs this time, about 19lbs the first time around) was all whole food, natural, non this and that blah blah.
But I didn't know of that wondrous exercise routine known as the plate push aways and fork put me downs...:)
And it's best to focus first on the plate push-aways, because a lot of foods (including Hot Pockets) require no fork
lol, very true0 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
Crackers and chips are largely complex carbohydrates...simple carbohydrates are sugar. Complex carbohydrates are starch and fiber. Fruit for example is largely simple carbohydrates.6 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.
Do we hold the food companies responsible for misleading infoy? Or, is it ultimately every single person's own failing for thinking the information they were given in terms of the healthfulness of the products they ate was accurate?3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
Crackers and chips are largely complex carbohydrates...simple carbohydrates are sugar. Complex carbohydrates are starch and fiber. Fruit for example is largely simple carbohydrates.
Some crackers have whole grains, but the example I referred to (Ritz) does not. They are made from refined white flour that has been stripped of fiber and nutrients. I misspoke stating that potato chips are a simple carbohydrate. Yes, potatoes are complex carbohydrates, but regular old potato chips contain little to no fiber, are high in fat, and it is really difficult to be satiated on one serving of chips. They may contain some potassium, but not much else besides starch and calories.
Years ago I used to think that me eating Ritz crackers was somehow making a better choice for myself. Now, I'd choose neither.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
Crackers and chips are largely complex carbohydrates...simple carbohydrates are sugar. Complex carbohydrates are starch and fiber. Fruit for example is largely simple carbohydrates.
Some crackers have whole grains, but the example I referred to (Ritz) does not. They are made from refined white flour that has been stripped of fiber and nutrients. I misspoke stating that potato chips are a simple carbohydrate. Yes, potatoes are complex carbohydrates, but regular old potato chips contain little to no fiber, are high in fat, and it is really difficult to be satiated on one serving of chips. They may contain some potassium, but not much else besides starch and calories.
Years ago I used to think that me eating Ritz crackers was somehow making a better choice for myself. Now, I'd choose neither.
People often get confused as to what simple vs. complex carbs are. Simple = simple sugars, and complex = starches (more complex chains of sugars that need to be broken down). Grains are starches (complex) whether they are whole grains or not, and fruit is a simple carb (although it's also packaged with fiber).
I think people often think "complex carbs" sound like they must be healthier, but the distinction has nothing to do with nutrition. So when cwolfman correctly said Ritz were complex carbs (like chips), he was not saying they were whole grains or making a comment about nutrition. He was saying the carbs in them were from starch.
Btw, Ritz and potato chips aren't "just carbs" whether simple or complex. They are carbs + fat. They are both easy to overeat for many because of the combination of the two plus the salt they also have.
About 28 g of Ritz has 144 calories, 74 from fat, 72 from carbs (the numbers are always a bit off due to rounding).
About 28 g of Lays chips have 149 calories, 86 from fat, 60 from carbs. (Plain potatoes are much closer to "just carbs," but they actually have a pretty good nutrition profile for the calories.)
It always seems odd to me that so many people seem to characterize these kinds of foods as "carbs."
When I grew up, crackers were understood to be snack food just like chips, and I really do think most people consider them such even now. Some are lower cal than others (depends on fat content) or might have more fiber.10 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.
Do we hold the food companies responsible for misleading infoy? Or, is it ultimately every single person's own failing for thinking the information they were given in terms of the healthfulness of the products they ate was accurate?
How is this misleading?
The core issue is projection of a behavioral problem onto an inanimate object.
4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
I may be missing something here: In the post of yours I quoted overly processed foods are bad and manufacturers should be held responsible, yet overly processed foods are often considered the "poor choice". But now the documentary says poor choices are not the problem?
It's all about choice unless how a person feeds them self is taken completely out of their hands. What to eat? How much to eat? And so on.
I'm fully aware there are outliers such as medical issues, areas that are scarce in certain types of food, or food starved period.
Sorry, yes I can see how that is confusing. I wasn't clear in my statement. One of the themes in the documentary is that there are many sources at large that would say that it's simply the children's or parents fault for making poor choices for the child. However, the food industry will advertise certain foods as being "healthy" or "healthier" due to certain factors like having less fat (but more sugar) being reduced calorie ( but having very little nutrition content). People are making poor choices in part to misleading advertising from the food industry.
That is not to say that individuals are not responsible for every choice they make, but I can see how one could think they were making healthy choices when they actually weren't. I remember a time when I thought choosing Ritz crackers over potato chips was a good choice when they can both be high calorie and are both basically just simple carbohydrates.
Crackers and chips are largely complex carbohydrates...simple carbohydrates are sugar. Complex carbohydrates are starch and fiber. Fruit for example is largely simple carbohydrates.
Some crackers have whole grains, but the example I referred to (Ritz) does not. They are made from refined white flour that has been stripped of fiber and nutrients. I misspoke stating that potato chips are a simple carbohydrate. Yes, potatoes are complex carbohydrates, but regular old potato chips contain little to no fiber, are high in fat, and it is really difficult to be satiated on one serving of chips. They may contain some potassium, but not much else besides starch and calories.
Years ago I used to think that me eating Ritz crackers was somehow making a better choice for myself. Now, I'd choose neither.
Nope. It may have lost some of the fiber and some trace nutrients from losing the hull/germ of the grain but it has not been 'stripped' of it's nutrients.11 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.
Do we hold the food companies responsible for misleading infoy? Or, is it ultimately every single person's own failing for thinking the information they were given in terms of the healthfulness of the products they ate was accurate?
I see some puffery, but not really anything I think is that confusing. I tend to ignore anything not on the actual label though, when it comes to claims about what's in the food. "Multigrain!" or "contains whole grains" are usually to be ignored, for example -- read the label to see what the most prominent ingrediants actually are.
Similarly "no fat" on foods that don't normally contain fat or "no sugar" on foods that don't normally contain sugar are idiotic. And neither means the food is low cal -- read the label.
Lean Pockets isn't misleading, it's a comparison with the cal content of regular Hot Pockets.
I think "the ad copy on the food confused me" is typically a cop out.
Also, people need to understand that a food being healthy (as in having important nutrients) doesn't mean it's low cal or not easy to overeat. For example, nuts. Or delicious home-made guacamole. Not that I speak from experience or anything! :-)8 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.
Do we hold the food companies responsible for misleading infoy? Or, is it ultimately every single person's own failing for thinking the information they were given in terms of the healthfulness of the products they ate was accurate?
How is this misleading?
The core issue is projection of a behavioral problem onto an inanimate object.
Agreed, but the behaviors we have regarding our food choices is a much bigger issue than: There is an object before you, you can choose whether or not to eat it. If this were the case advertisers would have no job.7 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.
Do we hold the food companies responsible for misleading infoy? Or, is it ultimately every single person's own failing for thinking the information they were given in terms of the healthfulness of the products they ate was accurate?
I see some puffery, but not really anything I think is that confusing. I tend to ignore anything not on the actual label though, when it comes to claims about what's in the food. "Multigrain!" or "contains whole grains" are usually to be ignored, for example -- read the label to see what the most prominent ingrediants actually are.
Similarly "no fat" on foods that don't normally contain fat or "no sugar" on foods that don't normally contain sugar are idiotic. And neither means the food is low cal -- read the label.
Lean Pockets isn't misleading, it's a comparison with the cal content of regular Hot Pockets.
I think "the ad copy on the food confused me" is typically a cop out.
Also, people need to understand that a food being healthy (as in having important nutrients) doesn't mean it's low cal or not easy to overeat. For example, nuts. Or delicious home-made guacamole. Not that I speak from experience or anything! :-)
While watching the documentary, I noticed the families were eating a lot of foods that I no longer eat. My family grew up eating similar foods. When I entered puberty I gained a large amount of weight, so much that I had stretch marks from that initial weight gain. When I began exercising regularly (participating in PE, joining track, dancing) and I grew a few inches, I lost some weight and wasn't chubby any more.
Never at any time in my youth would I have thought that some of the meals I was eating, or the foods that I was being served by my parents, were unhealthy. Now I do. There were meals that were high in saturated fats and calories that could have been eliminated from my diet at large.
When the families in the documentary showed that they thought they were making healthy choices, I could definitely relate. Discussing the amounts of sugar, fat, nutrients in food wasn't something my family discussed. I had to learn that on my own later as an adult.
If anything, perhaps the documentary brings to light a percentage of individuals that do not fully examine their eating habits, and draw causal relationships, as part of their family culture.5 -
It is not an epidemic, yet.
https://coach.nine.com.au/latest/10-reasons-why-the-japanese-have-avoided-the-obesity-crisis/5ce477ce-f3be-4a4d-a1a9-da0ff4ee812c
The documentary addresses the difference that maintenance of weight is not as simple as CICO. Various foods have different effects on the body. The documentary actually addresses how the food industry should be held responsible for the types of food they manufacture, sell, and the high number of overly processed foods on the market.
Are other "healthier" food choices available to the populations the documentary addresses? If so, then you're suggesting that it's not the individuals responsibility to make better choices and to eat an amount that will keep them at a healthy weight?
Cakes and pastries and candies of all sorts have been around for an awful long time, so I think it's a bit disingenuous to start blaming companies who decided to turn a profit on them.
Fish and veggies or half a cheesecake? Not my fault if you choose the one that slingshots you over your maintenance calories.
One of the overarching themes of the documentary is to point out that various people in the health and food industry often cite poor choices as a problem for obesity. The documentary attempts to show that may not be the case.
How is it not the case?
I had the same thought. Even if a choice has good intentions (i.e. eating/providing a "healthy" food per marketing or hearsay, focusing only on food quality and not quantity, etc.) it can still be a poor choice, or at the very least an uneducated one.
Do we hold the food companies responsible for misleading infoy? Or, is it ultimately every single person's own failing for thinking the information they were given in terms of the healthfulness of the products they ate was accurate?
How is this misleading?
The core issue is projection of a behavioral problem onto an inanimate object.
Agreed, but the behaviors we have regarding our food choices is a much bigger issue than: There is an object before you, you can choose whether or not to eat it. If this were the case advertisers would have no job.
It's a much smaller issue. Obfuscating this to a larger issue is addressing symptomatic results while the root cause remains unaddressed.
The advertising for this documentary is using a similar tactic. If advertising is the issue the same standards must be applied in all situations.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.5K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.2K Fitness and Exercise
- 382 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.6K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 878 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions