Why deprive yourself of delicious foods?
Replies
-
jasonmh630 wrote: »PerkisPower wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »PerkisPower wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Again, there are plenty of people here who are in perfect health with perfect blood work who defy what you just said.
There are also plenty of 90 year old men in perfect health who have been smoking for 70 years. Does this make cigarettes good for you now?
Flawed logic...
...like comparing cigarettes to food.
Comparing cigarettes to trans fats, yes. Both terribly unhealthy for you.
Eh. A cigarette now and again isn't going to give you lung cancer. Just like occasional trans fats won't give you heart disease. Again, and again, and again...it's all about content and dosage.
Nail on the head.
You're both wrong. From the National Cancer Institute at the NIH.There is no safe tobacco product, and there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »
Are you seriously suggesting those who don't eat like you do must have been brainwashed and are less responsible?SingRunTing wrote: »There is a difference for people who choose not to eat certain foods and people who think they can't eat certain foods.
I get that for some people, they just feel better when they don't eat XYZ or they just can't seem to control themselves around it. I understand that's how they feel and it's not affecting me so whatever. Personally, I'd rather learn how to control it than just not eat it ever again.
But the people who think they can't are a different story. They've probably been "brainwashed" by the media that its unhealthy and full of chemicals that will kill you. But I think there's also a psychological underpinning to it:
It's easier to blame the food for you being fat, than to take responsibility for it yourself. If the food is what is making you unhealthy, then it's not your fault. That's an attractive prospect for many who are in denial about how bad their eating habits are and that they chose to eat that poorly. Maybe it's how you were raised, but once you became an adult, you chose to continue eating badly.
Personal responsibility can be a scary thing.
Me on the other hand, I find personal responsibility to be liberating. I tried to cut dessert out of my life for a long time because I felt guilty when I ate it. Now that I track my calories and macros, I know that when I eat dessert, it's ok. It fits into my daily goals and my healthy diet. No more reason to feel guilty.
Not what I said. Nice try. I actually said that people who chose not to eat something don't affect me, so I don't care.
But I know that you are someone who likes to twist what people say and argue to death about it. So I'm not going to engage you again after this post.
Not twisting and not arguing to death. I'm glad I misread it and am happy that weren't suggesting that.
0 -
Why is that bad?
Why can't you eat as much as you want? Would that be bad?jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Plus, no one here is saying that you can eat as much of it as you want and not worry about it. EVERYTHING food related needs to be taken in context with dosage.
if you over eat to the point of obesity, then yes, I believe it would.
again, context and dosage....not individual food choice.
0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »PerkisPower wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »PerkisPower wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Again, there are plenty of people here who are in perfect health with perfect blood work who defy what you just said.
There are also plenty of 90 year old men in perfect health who have been smoking for 70 years. Does this make cigarettes good for you now?
Flawed logic...
...like comparing cigarettes to food.
Comparing cigarettes to trans fats, yes. Both terribly unhealthy for you.
Eh. A cigarette now and again isn't going to give you lung cancer. Just like occasional trans fats won't give you heart disease. Again, and again, and again...it's all about content and dosage.
Nail on the head.
You're both wrong. From the National Cancer Institute at the NIH.There is no safe tobacco product, and there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.
I laughed.
0 -
Why is that bad?
Why can't you eat as much as you want? Would that be bad?jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Plus, no one here is saying that you can eat as much of it as you want and not worry about it. EVERYTHING food related needs to be taken in context with dosage.
if you over eat to the point of obesity, then yes, I believe it would.
again, context and dosage....not individual food choice.
so obesity is good? Is that your argument now?0 -
PerkisPower wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »PerkisPower wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Again, there are plenty of people here who are in perfect health with perfect blood work who defy what you just said.
There are also plenty of 90 year old men in perfect health who have been smoking for 70 years. Does this make cigarettes good for you now?
Flawed logic...
...like comparing cigarettes to food.
Comparing cigarettes to trans fats, yes. Both terribly unhealthy for you.
Eh. A cigarette now and again isn't going to give you lung cancer. Just like occasional trans fats won't give you heart disease. Again, and again, and again...it's all about content and dosage.
Well, that also depends on the person. If you have asthma, or cystic fibrosis, or sarcoidosis, or are genetically predisposed to higher rates of cancer, then an occasional cigarette could still be very bad for you. As could occasional trans fat, if you are genetically predisposed to coronary artery disease. Unfortunately, most people don't know what they are predisposed to, so it's a crap shoot.
Yeah, okay. I'll fix it:
Eh. A cigarette now and again isn't going to give you lung cancer. Just like occasional trans fats won't give you heart disease. Again, and again, and again...it's all about content and dosage, barring any medical conditions.
OK, but I wouldn't call genetic pre-disposition a "medical condition" per se, as most people don't even know they have it, and it may never be discovered, even if it causes symptoms, because, we still don't know what causes most types of cancer. Or it may just lay dormant and be passed on to the next generation, without expressing itself in the original subject.0 -
I see where this is headed....
next stop, dumpsterfireville0 -
I'm laughing here......I have reverse my heart disease eating all foods, but in moderation!! My cardiologist has never told me I need not to eat certain foods. Also blood work is in the excellent range. Explain that!!! Which I'm still waiting on. LOL0
-
-
By day two, I was over the indulging. I wanted my berries for breakfast and thought, "No, I'm indulging!" Then I realized how stupid it was to force myself to eat junk I didn't want and decided to just have my berries. I never made a single trip to Dunkin Donuts. I didn't want the donuts.
Seems sensible to me. It's the same reason I never eat Dunkin Donuts anymore. I don't like them that much, and they don't fit into the way I like to eat. I never seem to want them.Some people demonize elimination. They see moderation as black and white. You either eat in moderation, which is "good" or you eat too much/not enough junk, which is "bad."
But, see, I'd call not eating something because you don't want to eat it, well, moderation. It's nutty to eat foods you don't care about, especially when you have a limited calorie budget and other foods you prefer available. There are any number of foods (including Dunkin Donuts) I never eat, but if I don't want to eat them why would I say I've eliminated them?
It seems like some people like to say they've eliminated things and some don't, that's one main difference, although (I'm thinking) a rather meaningless one. Others apparently do (for various reason discussed above) eliminate foods they actually do feel a desire to eat, and that's what I suspect is being asked about.
For example, if I were to eliminate going out to restaurants that would be giving up something I really enjoy and which currently is part of my social life. That would be a big sacrifice, so it would be perhaps of interest to find out why I think it's necessary (I do not). If someone else were because she doesn't much enjoy going out to restaurants, well, that's just common sense.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Enlarged/heart valve disease0 -
I didn't argue anything, lol. I asked a question.
Why is that bad?
Why can't you eat as much as you want? Would that be bad?jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Plus, no one here is saying that you can eat as much of it as you want and not worry about it. EVERYTHING food related needs to be taken in context with dosage.
if you over eat to the point of obesity, then yes, I believe it would.
again, context and dosage....not individual food choice.
so obesity is good? Is that your argument now?
0 -
I didn't argue anything, lol. I asked a question.
Why is that bad?
Why can't you eat as much as you want? Would that be bad?jasonmh630 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »
You're being baited into an Internet fight. Just a heads up.PerkisPower wrote: »because demonizing foods as "bad" and then blaming weight gain on them, then makes it easier to jut 100% restrict said foods and use them as a crutch ...
when you boil it down there are no good and bad foods. What matters is your overall diet...context and dosage is important, not individual food choices...
This is incorrect. There are plenty of foods that are bad for you, even in moderation.
Sure you can stay at a normal weight from keeping it to moderation but this doesn't mean these foods aren't terrible for your overall health.
True, we should just let his misinformation go unnoticed. :insertsarcasm:
What misinformation would that be? That trans fats are unhealthy? Go tell that to a room full of cardiologists and see what happens.
And again... In small doses, no one food is bad for you. If you gorge on stuff that's loaded with trans fat, then yeah... But you HAVE to take into account dosage.
Again, this is the misinformation. It is not good for you, in any amount. Sorry, I have to break this to some of you, apparently.
Plus, no one here is saying that you can eat as much of it as you want and not worry about it. EVERYTHING food related needs to be taken in context with dosage.
if you over eat to the point of obesity, then yes, I believe it would.
again, context and dosage....not individual food choice.
so obesity is good? Is that your argument now?
So you think overeating to obesity is good?
Il make it simple..
This requires a yes or no answer....0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Enlarged/heart valve disease
Heart valve disease is not usually caused by conditions affected by diet. (ie: high cholesterol, CAD, HTN)
http://www.pdrhealth.com/diseases/heart-valve-disease
An enlarged heart certainly can be, but it can also be caused by the HV disease itself.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/enlarged-heart-causes-symptoms-and-treatment.html
(Just providing some links for those who may want to read up on the conditions.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Enlarged/heart valve disease
Heart valve disease is not usually caused by conditions affected by diet. (ie: high cholesterol, CAD, HTN)
http://www.pdrhealth.com/diseases/heart-valve-disease
An enlarged heart certainly can be, but it can also be caused by the HV disease itself.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/enlarged-heart-causes-symptoms-and-treatment.html
(Just providing some links for those who may want to read up on the conditions.)
I have never had high cholesterol, neither CAD, or hypertension.
All I had was enlarged heart, 3 valves that leaked, some minor to major, now I no longer have enlargement and only 1 valve with a tiny leakage.
ETA: My cardio said that would probably go away also.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Enlarged/heart valve disease
Heart valve disease is not usually caused by conditions affected by diet. (ie: high cholesterol, CAD, HTN)
http://www.pdrhealth.com/diseases/heart-valve-disease
An enlarged heart certainly can be, but it can also be caused by the HV disease itself.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/enlarged-heart-causes-symptoms-and-treatment.html
(Just providing some links for those who may want to read up on the conditions.)
I have never had high cholesterol, neither CAD, or hypertension.
All I had was enlarged heart, 3 valves that leaked, some minor to major, now I no longer have enlargement and only 1 valve with a tiny leakage.
ETA: My cardio said that would probably go away also.
What caused the HV disease? Was it genetic? Just curious.
Either way, it's great that you were able to improve it with diet and exercise.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Enlarged/heart valve disease
Heart valve disease is not usually caused by conditions affected by diet. (ie: high cholesterol, CAD, HTN)
http://www.pdrhealth.com/diseases/heart-valve-disease
An enlarged heart certainly can be, but it can also be caused by the HV disease itself.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/enlarged-heart-causes-symptoms-and-treatment.html
(Just providing some links for those who may want to read up on the conditions.)
I have never had high cholesterol, neither CAD, or hypertension.
All I had was enlarged heart, 3 valves that leaked, some minor to major, now I no longer have enlargement and only 1 valve with a tiny leakage.
ETA: My cardio said that would probably go away also.
What caused the HV disease? Was it genetic? Just curious.
Either way, it's great that you were able to improve it with diet and exercise.
They are not sure what is the cause.
Thank you.0 -
ocaudle8912 wrote: »Okay, so be prepared for a rant.
Why do people deprive themselves of foods like chocolate, fried stuff, whatever when on a diet? These foods are not the enemy! The person eating them lacks self control, which is the true enemy. I hate going through my news feed and seeing people say "I never go out to eat" "I don't eat that trash" and I'm like dude moderation is key, not deprivation.
I'm determined to show people that you can lose weight and eat "trash" whenever you please. Again, it's all about moderation.
So, you would consider having 3 hot cocoas a day, "moderation"?
0 -
I feel the main problem is that everyone believes that things have to be either or when the reality is that it can be both and. There is no one way to do anything and when people accept this things run more smoothly because the need to prove that the way I'm doing something is the only right way to do it is dulled. People ultimately don't like to feel like they are out on a ledge solo, but guess what...doing what's best and what works for each of us individually is what matters.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions