Hacker News Reader

that is way I said that the movie has a clear agenda, but what you point out is exactly what she said is one of the problems:people believe that they can buy "light" stuff and that will be ok when it's in fact worse than non-light.

This is very much the same as for cigarettes, and why the "light" label on those has been banned for years.

View on HN

I watched it a few months ago so I maybe confused, but wasn't one of the main ideas the movie tried expose is that "move more, eat less" didn't work? I may be confused, but I think she spent a good part of the movie trying to explain why that didn't work by using cases like the 'light' food family for example.

yes, the movie makes a big deal of the fact that "just be more active" is not enough, and I agree with you that she seems to push it too hard.

But she made it in relation to the fact that for some categories (i.e. the US has had a constant increase in obesity for kids ages 2-5 which are not naturally not "sitting all day" types) moving more is not enough, and I felt the underlying points are still valid (school food is crap, adults are unable to understand what "healthy food", that "eat healthy" is not "eat less" etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com