Guys, stop with the orthorexia already!
Replies
-
@ana3067 do you guys have tim tams in America? They are an Aussie stapleJoanaMHill wrote: »The_Fitness_Foodie wrote: »
Next you people will be saying labeling food as "Sugar Free" or "May Contain Nuts" is orthorexic.... I mean heaven forbid we save some poor nut allergy suffers life, or worse still - we stop a diabetic having a hypo....!!
Sugar-free gummy bears should have never been invented and I'd like to look into the mind of the person who needs "may contain nuts" on their huge canister of mixed nuts.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
@ana3067 do you guys have tim tams in America? They are an Aussie stapleJoanaMHill wrote: »The_Fitness_Foodie wrote: »
Next you people will be saying labeling food as "Sugar Free" or "May Contain Nuts" is orthorexic.... I mean heaven forbid we save some poor nut allergy suffers life, or worse still - we stop a diabetic having a hypo....!!
Sugar-free gummy bears should have never been invented and I'd like to look into the mind of the person who needs "may contain nuts" on their huge canister of mixed nuts.
There are specialty places you can get them, but they are not super available. Definitely had a friend send me a Costco box of them. =D
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
@ana3067 do you guys have tim tams in America? They are an Aussie stapleJoanaMHill wrote: »The_Fitness_Foodie wrote: »
Next you people will be saying labeling food as "Sugar Free" or "May Contain Nuts" is orthorexic.... I mean heaven forbid we save some poor nut allergy suffers life, or worse still - we stop a diabetic having a hypo....!!
Sugar-free gummy bears should have never been invented and I'd like to look into the mind of the person who needs "may contain nuts" on their huge canister of mixed nuts.
There are specialty places you can get them, but they are not super available. Definitely had a friend send me a Costco box of them. =D
They are truly amazing
I guess it's the same as pop tarts here, you can only buy them in speciality American stores. Our supermarkets are banned from selling pop tarts due to their woeful nutritional content.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But that label information is good for the people who do care to have.I think thoroughly labeling foods is a great thing for society, the more details the better...
I'm not so sure about that. Don't get me wrong - I completely oppose anything that limits labeling opportunities - I just don't think it makes a pigeon ****s worth of difference in the health outcomes of the vast majority of people.
Without understanding the mechanisms, the labels are just more numbers that don't really illuminate anything.
At least in North America, we've turned into a culture of gluttons where it's not socially acceptable to tell even family members or close friends "You're eating too damn much".
The only way to increase the nutritional literacy in this country is to have that information available when the time is right for people- I think things are trending toward enlightenment, albeit slowly at times
The point is I was trying to get to is that trying to increase nutritional literacy is the wrong approach - if that's the path we're going to take, we've already failed.
The answer lies elsewhere.
Of course. That's why I said I would oppose any legislation that put limits on (honest) labelling.You can't help people who refuse to help themselves.
That's just a terribly dismissive/elitist way of looking at the problem, and at people, IMO.
It's true though. Horses, water, drinking kind of thing.
It's one aspect of the truth, yes.
But not one that helps people figure it out.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not at all. It's the truth. When I was at my heaviest, and in the process of getting there, I really had nobody to blame but myself. There were plenty of "excuses" if I wanted them...I was working crazy hours, tired, ate takeout at work every night, etc...but some...no, MOST... of my coworkers had exactly the same schedule and made better lifestyle choices. Healthier takeout choices for dinner, didn't eat too much of the food and candy people brought to the office, and went to the gym almost every day. I am an educated person. It's not like I didn't know that eating too much and not moving enough is a recipe for obesity. It's really not that complicated.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But that label information is good for the people who do care to have.I think thoroughly labeling foods is a great thing for society, the more details the better...
I'm not so sure about that. Don't get me wrong - I completely oppose anything that limits labeling opportunities - I just don't think it makes a pigeon ****s worth of difference in the health outcomes of the vast majority of people.
Without understanding the mechanisms, the labels are just more numbers that don't really illuminate anything.
At least in North America, we've turned into a culture of gluttons where it's not socially acceptable to tell even family members or close friends "You're eating too damn much".
The only way to increase the nutritional literacy in this country is to have that information available when the time is right for people- I think things are trending toward enlightenment, albeit slowly at times
The point is I was trying to get to is that trying to increase nutritional literacy is the wrong approach - if that's the path we're going to take, we've already failed.
The answer lies elsewhere.
Of course. That's why I said I would oppose any legislation that put limits on (honest) labelling.You can't help people who refuse to help themselves.
That's just a terribly dismissive/elitist way of looking at the problem, and at people, IMO.
But until I made up my mind to change my habits, nothing in the world could have helped me. It's really that simple.
Yes, I agree with this.
I'm not angry at myself--I had other priorities and I don't think it made me terrible that I did--but it was my responsibility and to the extent it was an information issue, it was my choice not to take control of the information and use it.0 -
I hate having to listen to this cr*p while in the sauna at the gym. It's either listen or not use the sauna. When i told this guy i lost over 100 lbs. in 13 months while eating carbs and fruit, as long as it was within my calorie range, I was told to speak to someone smarter then me. o guess results don't matter, even if my doctor, and blood tests from my yearly physically says i am doing fine.0
-
christinev297 wrote: »
@ana3067 do you guys have tim tams in America? They are an Aussie stapleJoanaMHill wrote: »The_Fitness_Foodie wrote: »
Next you people will be saying labeling food as "Sugar Free" or "May Contain Nuts" is orthorexic.... I mean heaven forbid we save some poor nut allergy suffers life, or worse still - we stop a diabetic having a hypo....!!
Sugar-free gummy bears should have never been invented and I'd like to look into the mind of the person who needs "may contain nuts" on their huge canister of mixed nuts.
Well Canadian, and I Have no idea. I've never heard of them
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
They are truly amazing
I guess it's the same as pop tarts here, you can only buy them in speciality American stores. Our supermarkets are banned from selling pop tarts due to their woeful nutritional content.
Do you think it's the chocolate that makes them truly amazing, or the human flesh?
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But that label information is good for the people who do care to have.I think thoroughly labeling foods is a great thing for society, the more details the better...
I'm not so sure about that. Don't get me wrong - I completely oppose anything that limits labeling opportunities - I just don't think it makes a pigeon ****s worth of difference in the health outcomes of the vast majority of people.
Without understanding the mechanisms, the labels are just more numbers that don't really illuminate anything.
At least in North America, we've turned into a culture of gluttons where it's not socially acceptable to tell even family members or close friends "You're eating too damn much".
The only way to increase the nutritional literacy in this country is to have that information available when the time is right for people- I think things are trending toward enlightenment, albeit slowly at times
The point is I was trying to get to is that trying to increase nutritional literacy is the wrong approach - if that's the path we're going to take, we've already failed.
The answer lies elsewhere.
Of course. That's why I said I would oppose any legislation that put limits on (honest) labelling.You can't help people who refuse to help themselves.
That's just a terribly dismissive/elitist way of looking at the problem, and at people, IMO.
It's true though. Horses, water, drinking kind of thing.
It's one aspect of the truth, yes.
But not one that helps people figure it out.
Sad thing, we can train dogs, but we can't train people.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »
They are truly amazing
I guess it's the same as pop tarts here, you can only buy them in speciality American stores. Our supermarkets are banned from selling pop tarts due to their woeful nutritional content.
Do you think it's the chocolate that makes them truly amazing, or the human flesh?
What the?
Admittedly I haven't read all the posts here. What am I missing?
0 -
Admittedly, the sweeping craze of gluten free is troubling because it makes people that truly have celiac disease look like they're people following a fad and less legitimate. But the OP was talking about orthorexia, which is the fixation on healthy foods and exercise to the point of being at serious risk of devolping eating disorders. I've known several people in my life that have gotten to this point and it's more than just jumping on diet bandwagons. It's working out for 3 hours a day and eating nothing but celery sticks because everything else has calories and carbs and too many is unhealthy. Orthorexia is obsessing over healthy things until it's no longer healthy.0
-
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »
They are truly amazing
I guess it's the same as pop tarts here, you can only buy them in speciality American stores. Our supermarkets are banned from selling pop tarts due to their woeful nutritional content.
Do you think it's the chocolate that makes them truly amazing, or the human flesh?
What the?
Admittedly I haven't read all the posts here. What am I missing?
Tim Tams is people.
I'm still stuck on people writing explanations to people they unfriend.
Don't you feel like the biggest narcissist while you're doing that? If your relationship is truly mismatched, the person on the other end of the screen either wouldn't have noticed or wouldn't have cared, right? I have only rarely been annoyed by an unfollow/unfriending, but receiving a missive attacking me for my politics from a guy I worked with four years ago is obnoxious.
Oh. I guess that's the point.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »
They are truly amazing
I guess it's the same as pop tarts here, you can only buy them in speciality American stores. Our supermarkets are banned from selling pop tarts due to their woeful nutritional content.
Do you think it's the chocolate that makes them truly amazing, or the human flesh?
What the?
Admittedly I haven't read all the posts here. What am I missing? 0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »I'm still stuck on people writing explanations to people they unfriend.
It's the same as rage quitting a forum with a "final" post.
0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »I'm still stuck on people writing explanations to people they unfriend.
It's the same as rage quitting a forum with a "final" post.
For sure. It makes me feel like I've won an argument I wasn't aware I was having.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »
They are truly amazing
I guess it's the same as pop tarts here, you can only buy them in speciality American stores. Our supermarkets are banned from selling pop tarts due to their woeful nutritional content.
Do you think it's the chocolate that makes them truly amazing, or the human flesh?
What the?
Admittedly I haven't read all the posts here. What am I missing?
Ewwww omg I'll be checking the packs next time I'm at the shops! !
0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »I'm still stuck on people writing explanations to people they unfriend.
It's the same as rage quitting a forum with a "final" post.
For sure. It makes me feel like I've won an argument I wasn't aware I was having.
:drinker:
0 -
I think you missed the point.obscuremusicreference wrote: »Don't you feel like the biggest narcissist while you're doing that?
They deserve an explanation about their bad behavior, so that one day they can potentially learn to not be such idiots. They may actually see the light.
Although, for someone like me, it's more because it's fun.
Example: found an anti-vaxxer that snuck in, some marginally functioning goober I knew in high school.
So I explained to them how measles affects children (they recently had a kid) and then sent pricing ball parks for infant sized caskets. Lulz were had. Lesson was presented. Doubtful this person was intelligent enough to understand it.
0 -
I think you missed the point.obscuremusicreference wrote: »Don't you feel like the biggest narcissist while you're doing that?
They deserve an explanation about their bad behavior, so that one day they can potentially learn to not be such idiots. They may actually see the light.
Although, for someone like me, it's more because it's fun.
Example: found an anti-vaxxer that snuck in, some marginally functioning goober I knew in high school.
So I explained to them how measles affects children (they recently had a kid) and then sent pricing ball parks for infant sized caskets. Lulz were had. Lesson was presented. Doubtful this person was intelligent enough to understand it.
Anti-vaxxers need to be told as forcefully as possible and I completely agree with this.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Gluten free seems to be the most popular at the moment and I find it quite hilarious because what they don't realise that anything gluten free has substitutes making the product more fattening and higher in carbs and sugars. They are probably doing quite the opposite for their "diet".0
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.
It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.
One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.
I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?
0 -
fionaterry92 wrote: »Gluten free seems to be the most popular at the moment and I find it quite hilarious because what they don't realise that anything gluten free has substitutes making the product more fattening and higher in carbs and sugars. They are probably doing quite the opposite for their "diet".
For those that have a choice, yes.... But for Coeliacs, wheat, gluten intolerant people like myself, who have no choice, what do you suppose we do....!?!
I know full well I'm sacrificing some good stuff by choosing gluten free, but I have little or no choice - constipation is one of the main side effects of my gluten free diet, which is frustrating, because diarrhoea is one of the reactions to eating gluten for me as a Coeliac.
As I posted before - it's not always by choice people go for the Gluten Free labels....
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.
It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.
One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.
I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?
Well, to be serious for a moment, part of it is about the obsession. There are some posters who respond to posts that say, basically, that there's nothing unhealthy about including some chocolate or ice cream in an overall balanced, nutritious diet with weird comments about how everyone at MFP claims it's great to eat Twinkies 100% of the time, although occasionally it's fast food or pop tarts or Cherry Coke or some other exemplar of "junk." That one can't think of eating "junk" without assuming you eat nothing but that, and in fact assuming that someone not eating "clean" will of course be eating nothing but "junk" seems psychologically messed up to me, although it's possibly just someone with very poor argument skills and a lack of logic.
As for the term "junk food," it doesn't bother me at all, but there are at least two possible problems with it: (a) Lots of people want to make the (valid) point that no foods (or only very rare foods) are healthy or unhealthy on their own, it depends on context. Thus, while it's certainly possible to look at a diet and see if it's healthy or unhealthy (and everyone would say that 100% Cherry Coke is unhealthy, I imagine), claiming that a particular food is unhealthy assumes that eating it makes you less healthy and there's no place where it might be helpful, both false. For example, something like Gu isn't really full of nutrients, but there's obviously a time (during an endurance event) when it might contribute a lot to someone's diet. Arguably, any quick sources of energy (i.e., simple and processed carbs, everyone's favorite scapegoats) could act in the same way post workout, and be good choices, even better for the particular needs than a piece of broccoli. Beyond that, in that including some of these foods in moderation in the diet doesn't make you less physically healthy, and can be psychologically healthy or positives, that's another reason to avoid the "bad food" label. (To me junk food doesn't equal "bad food," which is why the term doesn't bother me.)
My (b) is that junk food doesn't actually have a clear definition. I'd assume it means food that is generally low nutrient and high calorie, but as a result I'd include any sweets I bake or which a friend/relative offers to me (with the exception of ice cream I prefer home-baked items as my sweets of choice). Thus, I'm not sure what being made in a factory has to do with it, or additives, etc. The essence of the objection is flour, sugar, and butter, and in particular their presence in "excess," but whether they are in excess or not seems to have to do with my overall diet again, not the specific item. A cookie has lots of calories from butter, but so can fish if you prepare it that way.
Even if you say, oh, I only mean store-bought cookies, not home-baked cookies (which clean eaters do basically never), you'd have to show that the particular ingredients in a particular cookie are bad for you beyond the calories if eaten in excess, and yet there's rarely even an effort to do that (beyond the occasional baking soda fail). Instead, we hear about calories and processed sugar and processed flour, all of which are also in the homemade cookie.
Finally, related to this point, "clean" eaters like to claim "processed" foods as unhealthy and unprocessed as healthy, but as I like to point out although my way of eating is focused on whole foods (seems to be common around here, despite the 100% Twinkies straw man), I do include some processed foods (well, everything is processed, so let's say packaged). These include smoked salmon, frozen fish, and greek yogurt, as well as the occasional package of user-friendly spinach or baby carrots, etc. Also dried beans, and I could go on. I don't accept the claim that these are less good for me because "processed." I include them because I not only like them, but think they are good for me. Thus, freaking out about the evils of processing does seem to me at least not a very sensible way of looking at this, and focusing on individual items vs. overall diet seems ignorant of nutrition. (And so often seems a substitute for the work of actually eating an overall balanced diet--the idea is that if I don't eat "processed sugar" it's okay that I hate and don't eat veggies, which of course is a foolish bad idea.)0 -
The_Fitness_Foodie wrote: »fionaterry92 wrote: »Gluten free seems to be the most popular at the moment and I find it quite hilarious because what they don't realise that anything gluten free has substitutes making the product more fattening and higher in carbs and sugars. They are probably doing quite the opposite for their "diet".
For those that have a choice, yes.... But for Coeliacs, wheat, gluten intolerant people like myself, who have no choice, what do you suppose we do....!?!
I know full well I'm sacrificing some good stuff by choosing gluten free, but I have little or no choice - constipation is one of the main side effects of my gluten free diet, which is frustrating, because diarrhoea is one of the reactions to eating gluten for me as a Coeliac.
As I posted before - it's not always by choice people go for the Gluten Free labels....
I don't know what I would do, but since I don't eat that much packaged stuff anyway, I guess I hope that I'd just try and go with naturally gluten free items. (And since apparently there is a risk that they aren't as gluten free as one would assume I'm not opposed to the packaging. Nor do I blame someone who is gluten free against their will do to celiac for not wanting to necessarily give up pasta and seeking out alternatives.)
I still think it's fair game to mock the most obvious and ridiculous marketing responses to the fad (which has greatly inflated the numbers beyond celiacs) and to the idea that eliminating gluten, as opposed to the many higher calorie products that also contain gluten is what will affect weight. This is not at all directed at celiacs, IMO, and I'm glad the silly fad is helpful in some ways to you, as well as being the '10s answer to Snackwells.0 -
Relevant:
Friend of mine was at a farmer's market this morning. Apparently someone was selling gluten free apples for $8.50 a pound. Not organic, just gluten free.
BOOM0 -
I'd love to meet the author of "Wheat Belly" so I could slap them upside the head with their stupid book. Its not rocket science eat less, move more you will lose weight and feel better hopefully. Eat more, move less and you could become a reality star on "My weight is Killing me"0
-
What I find about the clean eating/no sugar/no wheat programmes is that they are totally against processed food until it comes to the author's supplement or protein shake which is ok ( and usually costs an arm and a leg)0
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.
It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.
One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.
I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?
But that's not what people who bash the clean eaters do. If you consume 2000 calories of junk food or alcohol, chances are you aren't interested in bashing someone else's food choices. Those of us who bash clean eaters generally eat well most of the time, but recognize that a little junk food is not unhealthy.
My issue with clean eaters is this: 1. Very rarely do they actually eat 100% clean. The hypocrisy annoys me on a personal level. I live with a clean eater who has finished off two pints of Talenti before I had more than a spoonful, among other prelogged snacks I never got to savor. And 2. I regularly read Clean Eating magazine. I enjoy it, but their advertising pages and new foods they review are chock full of highly processed foods. Aside from a plethora of buzzwords, the content of those features does not differ from the Food Network magazine.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »This interesting article discusses the growing epidemic of orthorexia, an obsession with the virtue of your food, rather than how much or little you eat. This can be obsessive thinking about gluten-free, clean, low-fat, local, juice-fasting, cleansing, or any other healthiest-diet-flavor-of-the-month.
It is often characterized by a fixation on foods that are "unhealthy." Like the guy who mentions evil Twinkies in every post.
One issue I have with bashing the 'clean-eating' folk in particular is, despite the fact that I am certainly not going to attempt a lifetime without touching a processed item again, but just because the calories are the same in two foods doesn't mean they're of equal value. If you chugged 2000 calories of alcohol, you may not put on weight but your liver will give out on you.
I just don't see how junk food (i.e. food that is made in factories with excess sugar, fat, oil, sweeteners, additives and chemicals) is not ' unhealthy'?
If you ate 2000 calories of broccoli you'd have a bad time as well.
The point is that a diet is the sum of it's parts, not any one item.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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