Paradox: Unhealthy food is often easier to track.
Options
Replies
-
redversustheblue wrote: »What makes a restaurant chain "far less healthy" than a local chain? How could you possibly know?
That was my thought. And by what measure? Amount of oil used? Sugar? Salt? Whether their meats and fish were frozen or not? What about number of calories in a typical meal?
I can tell you that there are beau coup local mom and pop stores that lose to Burger King and Micky D's on that last one.0 -
People that can't be bothered to track macros think that individual foods can be unhealthy. If they'd just put some thought into it, they'd realize that no single food can be unhealthy but only whole diets that are poor in nutrients due to poor planning can be unhealthy.
You're harping on semantics, though. Whole diets are made up of individual food choices.
This isn't about food shaming. You're quite correct that there are no "good" or "bad" foods. But there are good (better) or bad (worse) choices. If each of us are trying to stick to a limited calorie goal per day, choosing how we allocate those calories means that 100 calories of fresh veggies is going to probably be a better choice than 100 calories of potato chips -- not that potato chips are "bad" -- they're just a poorer choice given the alternative.0 -
I've seen threads where people have said they don't make "X" anymore because it's too difficult to track, even if X contains pretty much all good, natural stuff and they enjoy X. It's like they're so fixated on the process of tracking that it becomes the only way they look at food.
EXACTLY! This is what this thread is about. I don't want to become one of those people.0 -
People that can't be bothered to track macros think that individual foods can be unhealthy. If they'd just put some thought into it, they'd realize that no single food can be unhealthy but only whole diets that are poor in nutrients due to poor planning can be unhealthy.
You're harping on semantics, though. Whole diets are made up of individual food choices.
This isn't about food shaming. You're quite correct that there are no "good" or "bad" foods. But there are good (better) or bad (worse) choices. If each of us are trying to stick to a limited calorie goal per day, choosing how we allocate those calories means that 100 calories of fresh veggies is going to probably be a better choice than 100 calories of potato chips -- not that potato chips are "bad" -- they're just a poorer choice given the alternative.
Not really, not if you've already eaten all your days servings of veggies. You're not going to get extra points for eating more of them. You can't say that any one food is a "poorer" choice just by the food, you have to look at the overall diet and what you've already consumed that day. If I've eaten all my veggies and I'm under on my fat macro...yeah, potato chips are going to help me reach it, not a whole extra plate of vegetables. .
0 -
No, if I buy fresh fruits and veggies from the farmer's market, they don't have bar codes. If I buy fresh cheese from my local cheese shop, it doesn't have a bar code (or if it does, it's just an in-store code and not a UPC). If I eat my mom's cooking, it doesn't come with a bar code.
I think this advice is similar to the "shop the edges" advice of tacking a grocery store. The healthiest stuff -- fruits, veggies, fresh foods -- tend to be on the edges, while the unhealthy cookies and high sugar and trans fat content processed foods tend to be in the centre aisles. Not true of every store, of course, but you get the idea. The whole point is that cutting back on processed foods and eating more "real" food (for lack of a better term) tends to be more filling and nutritious.
The edges of my grocery store also have prepackages meats, cheeses, dairy product & even frozen meals.0 -
I do usually weigh pre-packaged food as long as I'm at home. Ditto with recipes I cook myself. Obviously, if I'm out and about, or eating at someone else's house, that's harder to do. But I try.
But it still rubs me viscerally the wrong way, though, to think that any weight loss scheme would lead someone to choose McDonald's as opposed to a healthy local bistro.
It seems like you're suggesting the MFP (as a weight loss scheme) is somehow responsible for this. It's just a database...of course, bar codes and whatnot are going to be far easier to populate in a database and for people to track...that's not MFP's fault.
Bottom line is people are lazy...it's not that hard to type in USDA Green Bell Pepper and weigh it and build a recipe...before you know it, you have a gazillion recipes in your recipe builder. The problem isn't MFP or the "scheme"...the problem is that people are lazy *kitten*.
0 -
Never had this problem. It's true--some people are lazy, or pressed for time and take the easy way out. Obviously food companies know this, hence nice, easy, detailed labels. Weighing and logging are just a habit, and like any habit you have to do it for awhile, and have it benefit you. When something is worth it, you just do it. Best.
0 -
No dude, I just bite the bullet and do it the hard way because if I eat the bad things, I start gaining weight back, even if I am ostensibly within the allotted calories. no junk for me. Not worth it. Rather spend time logging than get fat again.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It seems like you're suggesting the MFP (as a weight loss scheme) is somehow responsible for this. It's just a database...of course, bar codes and whatnot are going to be far easier to populate in a database and for people to track...that's not MFP's fault.
Not at all. I think it's an issue inherent to the calorie counting method of losing weight. MFP and other sites, tools and calculators are not the issue here.No dude, I just bite the bullet and do it the hard way because if I eat the bad things, I start gaining weight back, even if I am ostensibly within the allotted calories. no junk for me. Not worth it. Rather spend time logging than get fat again.
Ditto. But it's not the time and effort that bug me, it's the lack of accuracy. I'll happily put in the effort, but I hate not knowing what I'm eating or whether I'm wildly off track.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It seems like you're suggesting the MFP (as a weight loss scheme) is somehow responsible for this. It's just a database...of course, bar codes and whatnot are going to be far easier to populate in a database and for people to track...that's not MFP's fault.
Not at all. I think it's an issue inherent to the calorie counting method of losing weight. MFP and other sites, tools and calculators are not the issue here.No dude, I just bite the bullet and do it the hard way because if I eat the bad things, I start gaining weight back, even if I am ostensibly within the allotted calories. no junk for me. Not worth it. Rather spend time logging than get fat again.
Ditto. But it's not the time and effort that bug me, it's the lack of accuracy. I'll happily put in the effort, but I hate not knowing what I'm eating or whether I'm wildly off track.
Don't worry, you'll get better at it as you go along.
0 -
redversustheblue wrote: »What makes a restaurant chain "far less healthy" than a local chain? How could you possibly know?
Depends on what and where, of course. But you can compare individual meals and intuitively guess that, say, a grilled chicken wrap with fresh veggies, avocado, quinoa and a whole wheat tortilla, prepared fresh with local ingredients, is going to be more nutritious than, say, a McDonald's Big Mac. I know that, instinctively, I'd rather eat the former than the latter, and that it's probably better for me. But I wouldn't want to turn into one of those people who chooses the latter out of the convenience of logging it.
It's like that Supreme Court definition of pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. (Or, in this case, when I feel better eating it.)
'Local' doesn't make something healthier. Comparing two single meals to themselves is silly when looking at the bigger picture. I can eat a Big Mac and still have a healthy diet. If, over the course of a week, I eat foods that satisfy my macro nutrient and micro nutrient needs, then I'm eating a healthy diet. That diet can include Big Macs, grilled chicken wraps, fresh veggies, ice cream, potatoes, red meat, eggs, candy and any other food you like to eat.0 -
Local, natural, organic... none of those things make anything healthier. They're all valid food choices for various reasons if people wish to make them. But they're not about nutrition.
Again, you're missing my point. If I buy from the local farmer's market, it's not because an apple from Saint-Eustache is any healthier than an apple from New Zealand. It's because an apple from Saint-Eustache is healthier for me than processed, packaged junk food.
So when I talk about local restaurants, I'm not suggesting they're healthier *because* they're local. I'm suggesting that there do happen to be local restaurants that make an effort to serve up healthy, wholesome, nutritious dishes.
And now I'm really tired of arguing semantics, so I'll just trust that people understood the point I was trying to make here and leave it at that.0 -
When cooking at home, you can weigh and measure everything. It sounds like the big problem comes from either eating at restaurants or eating other ppl's cooking. I have pretty much just stopped going to restaurants. It's fattening and it takes up too much money. Eating at other ppl's houses I just take the smallest portions I can stand to. It's pretty grim, I won't lie. I'm just having to get used to living in this different manner as a trade off for not being fat and not having high blood sugar.
There's a visual guide to portions online somewhere. 2-3 oz meat looks like a deck of cards. 4 oz is the size of an average sized woman's palm of her hand, approx. 2 tbsp anything looks like a ping pong ball. a one cup serving of rice or potatoes is the size of a woman's fist. 1 tsp looks like the tip of yr thumb. 1 tbsp is to the first knuckle. Knowing this stuff helps you enter the right amounts in your log so that you get the right calorie counts, or at least pretty close.
0 -
Local, natural, organic... none of those things make anything healthier. They're all valid food choices for various reasons if people wish to make them. But they're not about nutrition.
Again, you're missing my point. If I buy from the local farmer's market, it's not because an apple from Saint-Eustache is any healthier than an apple from New Zealand. It's because an apple from Saint-Eustache is healthier for me than processed, packaged junk food.
So when I talk about local restaurants, I'm not suggesting they're healthier *because* they're local. I'm suggesting that there do happen to be local restaurants that make an effort to serve up healthy, wholesome, nutritious dishes.
And now I'm really tired of arguing semantics, so I'll just trust that people understood the point I was trying to make here and leave it at that.
So ... I guess you don't think there are any national chains out there that "make an effort to serve up healthy, wholesome, nutritious dishes".
OK. Personally, I am confused as to why Cheesecake Factory's Skinny Menu would not qualify (for example). I mean, where does a grilled chicken lettuce wrap fall short? It doesn't even have ridiculous amounts of sodium if you don't get the Asian version (soy sauce).
But, maybe if the entire menu isn't 'health conscious' then that's the issue? FYI, there are several national chain restaurants with branches in my area that qualify, but maybe there are not where you live. They do tend to stick to major metropolitan areas (I have no idea if you live in one or not).
0 -
The thing that people tend to forget is that you can create your own recipes, which means you can sit down and do this one time and then anytime there after that you want to make whatever "healthier choice" all you have to do is add it into your food log. It's not really that hard, I much rather take some time and build some recipes and weigh my food then scan something since "it's easier". I got overweight by taking the easy way out (not saying anyone else did, this is just me) by buying prepackaged food and eating way too much of it because it wasn't filling to me. When I make a homemade meal it's 10 times more filling and doesn't have half the calories as the crap I use to eat. So I gotta suck it up and take some time to log recipes and weigh/measure my food. Also prepping ahead of time can make it easier. Prep meals and know what is in them on a day off. That way during the week you don't have to figure out how much something is, it's already ready for you. So I guess I don't really see how it's harder to track then less healthy food. Regardless of the bar code, there is ways to make it just as easy... just may take a bit more planning.
0 -
Do you ever find yourself making unhealthy food choices simply because they're more convenient to track than healthy ones? What are your strategies to deal with this?
No, I really don't find it difficult to track homemade meals, and I guess I was in the habit of cooking before I started with MFP, so for me it was just a matter of learning how best to track that stuff. I actually like weighing and logging while I cook and keeping track of vegetables and other lower calorie items not just for the calories, but so I can look back and see that I've been getting enough or a good variety. I couldn't do that if I was using packaged items.
Plus, I've never actually learned to do the scan, so I guess that minimizes the temptation.0 -
Ditto with restaurants: The only ones with nutritional info on their websites are the big fast food chains, which are obviously far less healthy than the local restaurants which provide zero information about their menus.
I understand your point, although I don't really agree with it. IMO, if someone chooses not to cook because of the supposed hassle of logging they are fooling themselves or making excuses, because it's probably the hassle of cooking that is being avoided. (I like cooking, but not everyone does.)
On restaurants, I do tend to prefer local places to the national chains for dinner, not because they are necessarily healthier or lower calorie, but because they are more to my liking or more interesting (IMO), or the like. Restaurants are kind of a hassle if you log and difficult if you are trying to eat lower calories, so I just wouldn't want to go unless it was really worth it, and I'm picky about what's worth it to me. (I go to a fair number of restaurants that like to tell you the farms they get their produce from, etc., which often have some pretty decent options, but I also like local pub fare and various ethnic places that aren't necessarily lower cal at all.)
However, when I buy lunch--which I do far too often, because I'm too lazy to make it, not because of logging--I do pick out places that have calories posted. Those options, some of which are local chains, are ALSO ones that I think are pretty healthy and fit into my calories and nutritional preferences, or I couldn't justify buying lunch as often as I do (it's a waste of money, though, so I really need to stop). Maybe where I live is unusual to have a variety of lunch places with calories available, but I suspect not.0 -
That's a good point about going to restaurants out of desire versus convenience. I am pretty good about packing my own lunch and bringing it to the office with me, though there have certainly been times when I've been lazy and gone out for food.
There isn't much around my office with calorie info available, but there is the local farmer's market about a 10-minute walk away so it's easy enough to go buy some fresh fruits and veggies at lunchtime, and nice on a nice day.
I guess most US cities have more chain restaurants with nutritional info posted than perhaps I'm used to here in Montreal. However, I tend to like that about living here -- more independent local places, fewer generic American chains (except in the 'burbs), etcetera. I'd say that's a positive, and I guess I'll just have to learn to get better at guesstimating ingredients and portions.0 -
If I didn't have restaurants with calorie info to buy lunch from, I'm sure I'd just bring lunch so I could log accurately. The problem is I like the places I'm talking about and think they have good quality food and also I can avoid the morning time crunch. Back when I started I was much better about bringing leftovers.
Anyway, why assume I mean generic US chains? One of my favorite chains is UK based (generic or not) and the others aren't really national, at least not yet. Not that that has much to do with whether they are bad places to eat from or not. I do limit myself for lunch options to buy more than I would if not logging, but that doesn't mean I preference less healthy food, let alone that we in the US lack interesting local options. I personally just choose to limit guessing about restaurant meals to a couple times a week, and prefer that be for dinner. Others will have different preferences for their own reasons.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Anyway, why assume I mean generic US chains?
'Cause those are the only ones that provide nutritional information for their menus. At least here, that's the case.
And, like you, I prefer to eat at restaurants I enjoy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions