If eating trash makes us sick, why do we keep eating it?
Replies
-
I think you have to learn that over time by listening to your body. I used to eat all that junk, but gradually I learned that I feel better if I don't eat it (even though it's delicious!) so it makes it easier for me to say no. I very clearly remember the moment when I realized I should no longer eat donuts. I had one very greasy one, and I had indigestion for like 6 hours afterwards. It's just not worth it anymore.
I had a similar experience with alcohol in college. One night I got smashed and of course was miserably nauseous (not for the first time, but this was the night it sunk in). I decided never to drink like that again, and since that time I've never deliberately gotten drunk to the point of being sick - maybe a few times on accident, but only a handful over the next 20 years.
These days I genuinely prefer to eat healthy foods (even though I still enjoy the taste of junk sometimes). I don't like the greasy skin and bloating from salty, greasy fried foods. I don't like the sugar rush and inevitable crash of cheap sugary foods. I don't like feeling uncomfortably full. Over the years I've changed what I eat a little bit at a time, mostly by monitoring how I feel afterwards. I've also learned to stop BEFORE full. This weekend I made homemade waffles, which were delicious, but after 3/4 of mine, I was full, so I stopped eating. A year ago I might have eaten it all and felt sick after.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
True, honestly. How can one say that chicken isn't chicken? And to say it's addictive simply because it comes from KFC is just ridiculous. Listen to the argument rather than just thinking of your own next rebuttal.0 -
I don't know... this guy thinks it's addictive...
0 -
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
My point is that everyone uses the word "moderation" to mean different things. Plus, people have different ideas of how much constitutes a moderate amount. It doesn't mean anything, really.
"Moderation" is a lot like "clean". Everyone uses it differently, so the meaning varies depending on who is speaking. Small treats daily? Large treats daily? A weekly cheat meal? A weekly cheat day? A piece of cake every two or three months? All different takes on "moderation." And there are so many more.diannethegeek wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
Here's the thing about moderation, though. It's possible to eat fast food and to also feed your body 100% of the nutrients that it should have. This isn't always an either/or scenario.
I do not believe the term moderation has been grasped yet. Last I looked the term "daily" was being used.
"Clean" and "moderation" really have no consistent usages.
Also, some people don't want to eat a moderate amount of food that is bad for them. They want to eat only foods that are good for them.
There is nothing wrong with eating healthy! It's a great goal and certainly not one to discourage, IMO.
What people are saying is that it doesn't really work that way. Foods aren't "good" for you and "bad" for you - they're just food that has certain nutritional characteristics. A lot of people would say broccoli is "healthy" but if you eat nothing but broccoli, you'll wither away and die. Likewise, people might say a sugary candy is "bad" or "unhealthy", but a sugary candy may be one of the few foods that will help get you through a race or other strenuous physical activity. Moderation simply means eating foods in such a way that they do not sabotage the overall desired make-up of your diet, which includes both macro and micronutrients. Getting concerned about specific food choices being "healthy" and "healthy" is just losing sight of the forest for the trees. It's your overall diet that needs to be "healthy", not your specific food choices.
I disagree that all food is equal. I understand that some people view it that way and that works for them. I have to view it as "good for me" and "bad for me" or I'd pick the "bad for me" foods all day, every day. I'm trying to make a more healthy diet all the time. But I don't want to have a big fight about it. If you believe that all food is equal and that works for you, then I'm happy for you! Honestly.
I don't personally care who eats what, either. It makes absolutely no difference to me at all. Everyone has to do what works for them.
I'm just growing weary of the words "clean" and "moderation" and wish everyone could settle on meanings for these words that are repeated thousands of times here.
0 -
Food is food. Each contains x amount of calories, macronutrients and micronutrients. How you consume them defines your weight and health. Assigning "good" or "bad" labels is just a dumbed down way of categorizing foods for those that don't want to put the legwork into researching.0
-
"Moderation" is a lot like "clean". Everyone uses it differently, so the meaning varies depending on who is speaking. Small treats daily? Large treats daily? A weekly cheat meal? A weekly cheat day? A piece of cake every two or three months? All different takes on "moderation." And there are so many more.diannethegeek wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
Here's the thing about moderation, though. It's possible to eat fast food and to also feed your body 100% of the nutrients that it should have. This isn't always an either/or scenario.
I do not believe the term moderation has been grasped yet. Last I looked the term "daily" was being used.
"Clean" and "moderation" really have no consistent usages.
Also, some people don't want to eat a moderate amount of food that is bad for them. They want to eat only foods that are good for them.
There is nothing wrong with eating healthy! It's a great goal and certainly not one to discourage, IMO.
What people are saying is that it doesn't really work that way. Foods aren't "good" for you and "bad" for you - they're just food that has certain nutritional characteristics. A lot of people would say broccoli is "healthy" but if you eat nothing but broccoli, you'll wither away and die. Likewise, people might say a sugary candy is "bad" or "unhealthy", but a sugary candy may be one of the few foods that will help get you through a race or other strenuous physical activity. Moderation simply means eating foods in such a way that they do not sabotage the overall desired make-up of your diet, which includes both macro and micronutrients. Getting concerned about specific food choices being "healthy" and "healthy" is just losing sight of the forest for the trees. It's your overall diet that needs to be "healthy", not your specific food choices.
The hell you say!
0 -
I see you picked up this ridiculous point from another poster on another thread and keep running with it.
My point is that everyone uses the word "moderation" to mean different things. Plus, people have different ideas of how much constitutes a moderate amount. It doesn't mean anything, really.
"Moderation" is a lot like "clean". Everyone uses it differently, so the meaning varies depending on who is speaking. Small treats daily? Large treats daily? A weekly cheat meal? A weekly cheat day? A piece of cake every two or three months? All different takes on "moderation." And there are so many more.diannethegeek wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
Here's the thing about moderation, though. It's possible to eat fast food and to also feed your body 100% of the nutrients that it should have. This isn't always an either/or scenario.
I do not believe the term moderation has been grasped yet. Last I looked the term "daily" was being used.
"Clean" and "moderation" really have no consistent usages.
Also, some people don't want to eat a moderate amount of food that is bad for them. They want to eat only foods that are good for them.
There is nothing wrong with eating healthy! It's a great goal and certainly not one to discourage, IMO.
What people are saying is that it doesn't really work that way. Foods aren't "good" for you and "bad" for you - they're just food that has certain nutritional characteristics. A lot of people would say broccoli is "healthy" but if you eat nothing but broccoli, you'll wither away and die. Likewise, people might say a sugary candy is "bad" or "unhealthy", but a sugary candy may be one of the few foods that will help get you through a race or other strenuous physical activity. Moderation simply means eating foods in such a way that they do not sabotage the overall desired make-up of your diet, which includes both macro and micronutrients. Getting concerned about specific food choices being "healthy" and "healthy" is just losing sight of the forest for the trees. It's your overall diet that needs to be "healthy", not your specific food choices.
I disagree that all food is equal. I understand that some people view it that way and that works for them. I have to view it as "good for me" and "bad for me" or I'd pick the "bad for me" foods all day, every day. I'm trying to make a more healthy diet all the time. But I don't want to have a big fight about it. If you believe that all food is equal and that works for you, then I'm happy for you! Honestly.
I don't personally care who eats what, either. It makes absolutely no difference to me at all. Everyone has to do what works for them.
I'm just growing weary of the words "clean" and "moderation" and wish everyone could settle on meanings for these words that are repeated thousands of times here.
The use of the two words are not comparable in imprecision. Clean is used out of context of its actual meaning and is therefore vague.
Moderation is not. Words have meanings. Just stop it.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
It's akin to me making a ludicrous statement like "squats are horrible for your body" and then once people tell me I'm an idiot, I say "yes, in summary, regular exercise is good for your health." Of course, if you only read my summary (which isn't at all a summary of the nonsense I've been spewing in earlier posts) it will be easy to agree with, but that's only because it's not an accurate summary of what I've been saying. It's the same here - you only bothered to read the summary, which isn't an accurate summary, and then call everything else "jibber jabber." You might try actually reading the thread, as someone else suggested above, and then getting back to us with meaningful comments.0 -
I did not, but am glad someone else would like meanings for these words, too.
I see you picked up this ridiculous point from another poster on another thread and keep running with it.
My point is that everyone uses the word "moderation" to mean different things. Plus, people have different ideas of how much constitutes a moderate amount. It doesn't mean anything, really.
"Moderation" is a lot like "clean". Everyone uses it differently, so the meaning varies depending on who is speaking. Small treats daily? Large treats daily? A weekly cheat meal? A weekly cheat day? A piece of cake every two or three months? All different takes on "moderation." And there are so many more.diannethegeek wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
Here's the thing about moderation, though. It's possible to eat fast food and to also feed your body 100% of the nutrients that it should have. This isn't always an either/or scenario.
I do not believe the term moderation has been grasped yet. Last I looked the term "daily" was being used.
"Clean" and "moderation" really have no consistent usages.
Also, some people don't want to eat a moderate amount of food that is bad for them. They want to eat only foods that are good for them.
There is nothing wrong with eating healthy! It's a great goal and certainly not one to discourage, IMO.
What people are saying is that it doesn't really work that way. Foods aren't "good" for you and "bad" for you - they're just food that has certain nutritional characteristics. A lot of people would say broccoli is "healthy" but if you eat nothing but broccoli, you'll wither away and die. Likewise, people might say a sugary candy is "bad" or "unhealthy", but a sugary candy may be one of the few foods that will help get you through a race or other strenuous physical activity. Moderation simply means eating foods in such a way that they do not sabotage the overall desired make-up of your diet, which includes both macro and micronutrients. Getting concerned about specific food choices being "healthy" and "healthy" is just losing sight of the forest for the trees. It's your overall diet that needs to be "healthy", not your specific food choices.
I disagree that all food is equal. I understand that some people view it that way and that works for them. I have to view it as "good for me" and "bad for me" or I'd pick the "bad for me" foods all day, every day. I'm trying to make a more healthy diet all the time. But I don't want to have a big fight about it. If you believe that all food is equal and that works for you, then I'm happy for you! Honestly.
I don't personally care who eats what, either. It makes absolutely no difference to me at all. Everyone has to do what works for them.
I'm just growing weary of the words "clean" and "moderation" and wish everyone could settle on meanings for these words that are repeated thousands of times here.
The two words are not comparable. Clean is used out of context of its actual meaning and is therefore vague.
Moderation is not. Words have meanings. Just stop it.
More time is spent debating "clean" and "moderation" than anything...and neither one of those concepts has a concrete definition.
One man's "moderate" amount is another man's "too much." One man's "clean" is another's "not clean" (or possibly "dirty", I don't know the opposite word.)
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
It's akin to me making a ludicrous statement like "squats are horrible for your body" and then once people tell me I'm an idiot, I say "yes, in summary, regular exercise is good for your health." Of course, if you only read my summary (which isn't at all a summary of the nonsense I've been spewing in earlier posts) it will be easy to agree with, but that's only because it's not an accurate summary of what I've been saying. It's the same here - you only bothered to read the summary, which isn't an accurate summary, and then call everything else "jibber jabber." You might try actually reading the thread, as someone else suggested above, and then getting back to us with meaningful comments.
I'd say, regular exercises are good for your body but squats aren't necessarily horrible for your body. If you do squats incorrectly, they can certainly be detrimental to your body. If you do them correctly, they are good for your overall health
I'd like to find common ground and work back to her other statements but I'll leave to you and the others to the shark feed.0 -
It should seem obvious that eating some of one kind of food, occasionally, while keeping it within a limit, should be a definition of moderation. Not eating it every day, or in large quantities. Why should this be argued ad nauseum?0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
If you actually read what she actually posted in this thread, your selected quotes were not summarizing her point - at all.
0 -
To the OP I will answer with this...
From the great words of Timbahwolffff...
"Practice discipline. Or Practice being disappointed. Your choice."
What are we going to do today Brain? The same thing we do everyday Pinky, lift and track macros and get our Micros in along with fiber.
It's pretty much that simple in my own humble opinion but I'm no certified etc etc. Best of luck to all and eagerly waiting/reading with my good/not good foods in hand, because in the end I make my own choices like everyone else does out here
Sooner or later one has to live and why not enjoy the delicious proteins that are waiting to be consumed! Come my little proteins!!!0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
Again...read her posts. The jibber jabber is a summary of the poster you are defending.
1 -
For many people, eating it every day is moderation...and it works very well for them.It should seem obvious that eating some of one kind of food, occasionally, while keeping it within a limit, should be a definition of moderation. Not eating it every day, or in large quantities. Why should this be argued ad nauseum?
For someone else, it's weekly, monthly or even less.
The amounts change, too.
So, really, it means nothing until the person using the word explains their definition of "a moderate amount."
I don't think anyone needs to defend their choices, of course. Eat non, eat some, eat a ton - it's their choice and no reason to pick on it or defend it.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
Because the poster that people are taking exception to is being absolutist, touting hyperbole and has been posting inaccuracies all the way through this thread.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
Again...read her posts. The jibber jabber is a summary of the poster you are defending.
I'm not defending her. As I agree(with you) that some of her other comments don't make sense.
But I do agree on what she is attempting to portray as a summarization of her comments.
How about if I just asked you those questions as if I made them? W/O out any context or post history. ie.. solely standing on it's own? Basically I just want to know you stance on micronutrient intake and it's importance to you. I already know where you stand on macros and I agree completely. I'm no longer trying to get you on any common ground with the poster. Thanks.0 -
because it tastes so darn good? 0
-
But if we don't argue about minutiae, people can't sit there and feel superior about themselves.
They can't pat themselves on the back for not eating "junk" food without passive-aggressively saying nonsense like "not all foods are equal" and then talking out the other side of their mouth with "I don't think anyone needs to defend their choices, of course."
That's like saying: "You can eat that cookie if you want, but I won't, because it's not equal to this carrot."
The other person hears: "I'm better because I chose the carrot over the cookie."
It smacks of unnecessary smugness.1 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
It's akin to me making a ludicrous statement like "squats are horrible for your body" and then once people tell me I'm an idiot, I say "yes, in summary, regular exercise is good for your health." Of course, if you only read my summary (which isn't at all a summary of the nonsense I've been spewing in earlier posts) it will be easy to agree with, but that's only because it's not an accurate summary of what I've been saying. It's the same here - you only bothered to read the summary, which isn't an accurate summary, and then call everything else "jibber jabber." You might try actually reading the thread, as someone else suggested above, and then getting back to us with meaningful comments.
I'd say, regular exercises are good for your body but squats aren't necessarily horrible for your body. If you do squats incorrectly, they can certainly be detrimental to your body. If you do them correctly, they are good for your overall health
I'd like to find common ground and work back to her other statements but I'll leave to you and the others to the shark feed.
Yes, when performed incorrectly and in certain circumstances, they can be detrimental - but the same goes for most things when abused. But surely you can see the difference between making a broad assertion like "squats are always bad" and a narrower, more accurate statement like "squats are fine when performed properly." Getting back to this thread, KFC can be bad when consumed in excess - I don't think anyone would dispute that. But does that mean the chicken at KFC isn't chicken? Does it mean it's addictive mystery meat that somehow tastes better than "real" chicken? Again, if you haven't read the thread and only glanced at the "summary," which isn't actually a summary of this thread at all, then you don't have the complete picture. And to the extent you simply want to put words in someone else's mouth to "find common ground and work back to her other statements," I'm not sure how that's particularly productive. I'd prefer to deal with what people actually said, rather than trying to put more reasonable words in their mouths, and to the extent what someone is saying is nonsense, I don't see any harm in calling that out.1 -
The education is FREE to those willing to learn it. Anyone who is willing and committed can reduce portion sizes. And of course there are events where people finally get it (a heart attack, stroke, etc.) and then make changes. It really is going to come down to how much of a priority it really is to the person.
Let me just say that IF this were the case entirely, then inmates in penitentiaries should be obese.Chaotic_Weevil wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Moderation is the big word to stick to but there is science to it as well
Food companies are selling us drugs, sugar and salt.
They know that they can sell more and more.
The whole world is getting fat and ill as a result.
We crave them and we crave foods that contain them
I'm the worst, i love those foods and give me them all the time. I'm trying desperately to break the cycle but struggling and do give in to it occasionally.
No. People get fat and ill because they don't pay attention to what they're eating, are largely ignorant of their calorie limits and nutritional needs, and lack the personal accountability to ensure they don't go massively overboard.
Until people stop blaming external factors and accept that it's their own problem then things will not change.
Exactly this. Obesity is on the rise because people eat too much and move too little, and at the end of the day the decision to do that is made by you. It's very easy to make a villain out of the convenience food providers and producers, but at the end of the day you are the one making yourself fat. Not them.
I'm sorry but I call BS. You cannot fit obesity into a neat small little box. Sorry to break it to some of you guys, but for MANY people external factors ARE to blame. Individual responsibility is a part of it, but you are naïve if you think external factors don't play a major part. Every heard of food deserts? Places where access to nutritionally rich food is limited or nonexistent? Ever think about areas where there ARE no places for people to get out and "move" because it's too dangerous? They can't afford a fancy gym membership either. Ever think about people who are NOT educated and do not know any better about how to really eat properly? Ever think about sway that cultural values have over many people that lead them to truly believe that bigger is better and healthy?
The problem I have with MFP is that a lot of us have the luxury to take charge of our health and yes, in those cases we should know better and do better (even though I have to point out that we ALL know that junk food has an addictive quality to it and triggers our dopamine reward system). But, the world is a big place. Saying obesity is on the rise because people eat too much and move too little does NOT apply to everyone.
They DON'T get nutritionally rich foods. Nor do they live in "safe" areas. They don't have gyms (most penitentiaries have removed weights). Many inmates have very average intelligence.
So why are so many thin and some very fit? Well because their calorie intake is basically restricted.
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
That's not really a fair comparison. In your scenario, their calories are restricted for them. They don't have to use willpower to limit their portions or educate themselves about calories and nutrition to figure out appropriate portion sizes.
In the scenario that dp1228 is referring to getting the education and the willpower to reduce portion sizes can be incredibly challenging. Particularly in a context where food might be a big part of how they cope with living in difficult circumstances, nobody else is educated on the matter and nobody else really cares about reducing their portion sizes.
Very few people will beat the odds to lose weight in those circumstances on their own, it might be simple logistically to do so but its incredibly difficult practically without changing the environment.
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
The cost of education isn't just measured by how much cash you do or don't pay for it, it's also measured by how much effort you have to put in to get access to it. The effort required in the middle class scenario you referred to is likely significantly lower for most people there than for many of those in the scenario dp1228 is referring to. Not everyone has regular internet access to monitor their calories or get that basic education on nutrition. It requires a lot more effort and thus a much greater cost for them to get that education, even if they are willing to learn it.
Willingness and commitment are also put to greater test in some environments than in others. In an environment where you are constantly stressed you are much more likely to make bad decisions and let short term pleasures win over longer term goals. In that environment it takes a lot more willingness and commitment to lose a pound than it does in a less stressful one.
That's not to say that people in more difficult circumstances can't do it and it's not to absolve them of the personal responsibility to do it but I think it's fair enough to acknowledge that they face more complex challenges on average and will do better if they can or we can (as a society) help to change their environment.0 -
It should seem obvious that eating some of one kind of food, occasionally, while keeping it within a limit, should be a definition of moderation. Not eating it every day, or in large quantities. Why should this be argued ad nauseum?
Just another person who likes to argue in the forums and make no real point, or input.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
Again...read her posts. The jibber jabber is a summary of the poster you are defending.
I'm not defending her. As I agree(with you) that some of her other comments don't make sense.
But I do agree on what she is attempting to portray as a summarization of her comments.
How about if I just asked you those questions as if I made them? W/O out any context or post history. ie.. solely standing on it's own? Basically I just want to know you stance on micronutrient intake and it's importance to you. I already know where you stand on macros and I agree completely. I'm no longer trying to get you on any common ground with the poster. Thanks.
So now you're just asking whether people think proper nutrition is important for overall health? When has anyone disputed that?0 -
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
Again...read her posts. The jibber jabber is a summary of the poster you are defending.
I'm not defending her. As I agree(with you) that some of her other comments don't make sense.
But I do agree on what she is attempting to portray as a summarization of her comments.
How about if I just asked you those questions as if I made them? W/O out any context or post history. ie.. solely standing on it's own? Basically I just want to know you stance on micronutrient intake and it's importance to you. I already know where you stand on macros and I agree completely. I'm no longer trying to get you on any common ground with the poster. Thanks.
So now you're just asking whether people think proper nutrition is important for overall health? When has anyone disputed that?
He's the epitome of an internet troll. He shows up and argues for *kitten* and giggles.0 -
Whatever your food preferences are for weight loss, the way to stick to it is planning. You have to PLAN to have the foods you've chosen for your plan around you all day long. You also have to PLAN not to be around the one's you don't want to use for your weight loss or at least not be without something you want to eat whenever the foods you don't want will be or might be around.
I am going to suspend judgement or commentary on what constitutes "trash" food and just leave the paragraph I just wrote to stand as to "why" and "how" to change your food choices. There are plenty of threads that address the choosing of your weight loss foods and how strict or flexible you really need to be for that.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
It's akin to me making a ludicrous statement like "squats are horrible for your body" and then once people tell me I'm an idiot, I say "yes, in summary, regular exercise is good for your health." Of course, if you only read my summary (which isn't at all a summary of the nonsense I've been spewing in earlier posts) it will be easy to agree with, but that's only because it's not an accurate summary of what I've been saying. It's the same here - you only bothered to read the summary, which isn't an accurate summary, and then call everything else "jibber jabber." You might try actually reading the thread, as someone else suggested above, and then getting back to us with meaningful comments.
I'd say, regular exercises are good for your body but squats aren't necessarily horrible for your body. If you do squats incorrectly, they can certainly be detrimental to your body. If you do them correctly, they are good for your overall health
I'd like to find common ground and work back to her other statements but I'll leave to you and the others to the shark feed.
Yes, when performed incorrectly and in certain circumstances, they can be detrimental - but the same goes for most things when abused. But surely you can see the difference between making a broad assertion like "squats are always bad" and a narrower, more accurate statement like "squats are fine when performed properly." Getting back to this thread, KFC can be bad when consumed in excess - I don't think anyone would dispute that. But does that mean the chicken at KFC isn't chicken? Does it mean it's addictive mystery meat that somehow tastes better than "real" chicken? Again, if you haven't read the thread and only glanced at the "summary," which isn't actually a summary of this thread at all, then you don't have the complete picture. And to the extent you simply want to put words in someone else's mouth to "find common ground and work back to her other statements," I'm not sure how that's particularly productive. I'd prefer to deal with what people actually said, rather than trying to put more reasonable words in their mouths, and to the extent what someone is saying is nonsense, I don't see any harm in calling that out.
If you make a broad assumptions like you tried to make about squats, then I'd answer and then clarify why a broad statement like that isn't correct. If I think you would be receptive to that discussion. Luckily you seem to be
Her stance on chicken is ridiculous. I choose not to engage in trying to persuade her. I'll leave that up to the rest. They seem to have a handle on that.
I never attempted to put words in anyone's mouth. I just said that she appeared to summarize her points. I didn't re-write what she said, I actually quoted what she said and stated "she appears to summarize".....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions