Just ate a full container of grapes...
Replies
-
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.0 -
Personally I'm supposing. Which is why I said IMO.0
-
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?0 -
I can confirm that after eating the previously posted pizza, Victoria sponge cake, Greek yogurt mixed with Peanut butter FlavDrops topped with carob flakes and dark choc Terrys chocolate orange, mini animal cookies, biscotti cookies and Hognutsbutters cinnamon bun and Mississippi mud pie peanut butters I have not woken up dead.
All meticulously logged. All accounted for. All within my daily calorie and macronutritional goals.
All included in a balanced diet and exercise regime.
Not dead.0 -
LOL0
-
KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »Lol...you peeps just enjoy your pizza and cake ok. I'll enjoy my fruits. Thank you very much
you seem to have a very strong grasp of nutrition....
/sarcasm0 -
-
Someone save me from reading four pages and tell me if OP reported how things went later that day/the next day. Entire containers of grapes can be...very liberating.0
-
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
Paradoxically, I suspect someone eating cookies and chocolate every day at maintenance calories will be healthier than someone eating only fruit every day at the same calories.0 -
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?
I think you guys are arguing the same point, but...
(Assuming two people with 1800 cal/day diet)
Person A eats 500g of grapes. Person B eats 500g of cake.
Person A will have had:
335 cal
10% Vit A, 33% Vit C, 7% Calcium, 8% Iron, 3g Protein, 10mg Sodium, 955mg Potassium
Person B will have had:
1835 cal
9% vit A, 1% vit C, 22% Calcium, 61% Iron, 20g Protein, 1670mg Sodium, 1000mg Potassium
(note I didn't list sugar... because for some reason the non-starred 'cake' entry doesn't have sugar??)
Fairly good profile for nutrients for both with some swaps in what they're rich in, but person B has blown their calories and will need to eat WAY over to reach anything sane for nutrients... or just call it a day. And 500g of cake will not keep them full the whole day.
Basically, person A just had a small meal. Person B had a full *day*
So, it's fairly obvious why the better choice was to eat 500g of grapes. Not to say they *shouldn't* eat cake, but if you're going to eat 500g of something and want to eat more in the day and are restricting your calories, grapes are the way to go.
(note, for fun: roughly 1200 calories of grapes is 1800g, and 1200 of cake is 336g)
0 -
spoonyspork wrote: »
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?
I think you guys are arguing the same point, but...
(Assuming two people with 1800 cal/day diet)
Person A eats 500g of grapes. Person B eats 500g of cake.
Person A will have had:
335 cal
10% Vit A, 33% Vit C, 7% Calcium, 8% Iron, 3g Protein, 10mg Sodium, 955mg Potassium
Person B will have had:
1835 cal
9% vit A, 1% vit C, 22% Calcium, 61% Iron, 20g Protein, 1670mg Sodium, 1000mg Potassium
(note I didn't list sugar... because for some reason the non-starred 'cake' entry doesn't have sugar??)
Fairly good profile for nutrients for both with some swaps in what they're rich in, but person B has blown their calories and will need to eat WAY over to reach anything sane for nutrients... or just call it a day. And 500g of cake will not keep them full the whole day.
Basically, person A just had a small meal. Person B had a full *day*
So, it's fairly obvious why the better choice was to eat 500g of grapes. Not to say they *shouldn't* eat cake, but if you're going to eat 500g of something and want to eat more in the day and are restricting your calories, grapes are the way to go.
(note, for fun: roughly 1200 calories of grapes is 1800g, and 1200 of cake is 336g)
Now compare 1800 calories of grapes with 1800 calories of cake and give your opinion on which is healthier...
...because MFP works from a presumption of calorie limits since it's a calorie tracking site.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »If by container of grapes, do you mean wine?
lol!0 -
spoonyspork wrote: »
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?
I think you guys are arguing the same point, but...
(Assuming two people with 1800 cal/day diet)
Person A eats 500g of grapes. Person B eats 500g of cake.
Person A will have had:
335 cal
10% Vit A, 33% Vit C, 7% Calcium, 8% Iron, 3g Protein, 10mg Sodium, 955mg Potassium
Person B will have had:
1835 cal
9% vit A, 1% vit C, 22% Calcium, 61% Iron, 20g Protein, 1670mg Sodium, 1000mg Potassium
(note I didn't list sugar... because for some reason the non-starred 'cake' entry doesn't have sugar??)
Fairly good profile for nutrients for both with some swaps in what they're rich in, but person B has blown their calories and will need to eat WAY over to reach anything sane for nutrients... or just call it a day. And 500g of cake will not keep them full the whole day.
Basically, person A just had a small meal. Person B had a full *day*
So, it's fairly obvious why the better choice was to eat 500g of grapes. Not to say they *shouldn't* eat cake, but if you're going to eat 500g of something and want to eat more in the day and are restricting your calories, grapes are the way to go.
(note, for fun: roughly 1200 calories of grapes is 1800g, and 1200 of cake is 336g)
The problem though is it's a false dichotomy.
500g of cake vs 500g of grapes aren't the only options.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
spoonyspork wrote: »
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?
I think you guys are arguing the same point, but...
(Assuming two people with 1800 cal/day diet)
Person A eats 500g of grapes. Person B eats 500g of cake.
Person A will have had:
335 cal
10% Vit A, 33% Vit C, 7% Calcium, 8% Iron, 3g Protein, 10mg Sodium, 955mg Potassium
Person B will have had:
1835 cal
9% vit A, 1% vit C, 22% Calcium, 61% Iron, 20g Protein, 1670mg Sodium, 1000mg Potassium
(note I didn't list sugar... because for some reason the non-starred 'cake' entry doesn't have sugar??)
Fairly good profile for nutrients for both with some swaps in what they're rich in, but person B has blown their calories and will need to eat WAY over to reach anything sane for nutrients... or just call it a day. And 500g of cake will not keep them full the whole day.
Basically, person A just had a small meal. Person B had a full *day*
So, it's fairly obvious why the better choice was to eat 500g of grapes. Not to say they *shouldn't* eat cake, but if you're going to eat 500g of something and want to eat more in the day and are restricting your calories, grapes are the way to go.
(note, for fun: roughly 1200 calories of grapes is 1800g, and 1200 of cake is 336g)
TL; DR
TL;DR - False dichotomy...but one option is clearly superior because reasons/grapes.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »If by container of grapes, do you mean wine?
lol0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Someone save me from reading four pages and tell me if OP reported how things went later that day/the next day. Entire containers of grapes can be...very liberating.
OP came looking for support. Instead she seems to be laughing at how this thread went, which is likely better in the long run since she has stopped thinking about eating grapes.0 -
KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!
In, just to hear the responses to this bit of genius.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just to touch on the actual original post... an entire container of grapes would be delicious but how did the OP not NOT bloat with serious gas and/or spend hours on the pot regretting eating it?
That's a LOT of fermenting fruit in your gut.
Also, i'm quite disappointed. I was hoping to hear some miracle where I could eat 5000+ calories of just fruit/veg/good grains and never gain weight....0 -
-
Just to touch on the actual original post... an entire container of grapes would be delicious but how did the OP not NOT bloat with serious gas and/or spend hours on the pot regretting eating it?
That's a LOT of fermenting fruit in your gut.
Also, i'm quite disappointed. I was hoping to hear some miracle where I could eat 5000+ calories of just fruit/veg/good grains and never gain weight....
If OP is anything like me, there is no food on the planet that sends me running to the loo
I've tried them all lol
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!
In, just to hear the responses to this bit of genius.
Oh scroll back a few pages, she got schooled....and also tried to insult me, so that was fun.
I can't believe she tried to shame you because you don't look like the shopped and filtered model she's hiding behind
Also, did you measure your waist during all of this, OP? For science.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »spoonyspork wrote: »
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?
I think you guys are arguing the same point, but...
(Assuming two people with 1800 cal/day diet)
Person A eats 500g of grapes. Person B eats 500g of cake.
Person A will have had:
335 cal
10% Vit A, 33% Vit C, 7% Calcium, 8% Iron, 3g Protein, 10mg Sodium, 955mg Potassium
Person B will have had:
1835 cal
9% vit A, 1% vit C, 22% Calcium, 61% Iron, 20g Protein, 1670mg Sodium, 1000mg Potassium
(note I didn't list sugar... because for some reason the non-starred 'cake' entry doesn't have sugar??)
Fairly good profile for nutrients for both with some swaps in what they're rich in, but person B has blown their calories and will need to eat WAY over to reach anything sane for nutrients... or just call it a day. And 500g of cake will not keep them full the whole day.
Basically, person A just had a small meal. Person B had a full *day*
So, it's fairly obvious why the better choice was to eat 500g of grapes. Not to say they *shouldn't* eat cake, but if you're going to eat 500g of something and want to eat more in the day and are restricting your calories, grapes are the way to go.
(note, for fun: roughly 1200 calories of grapes is 1800g, and 1200 of cake is 336g)
TL; DR
TL;DR - False dichotomy...but one option is clearly superior because reasons/grapes.
I never said superior, I never said it was grapes or cake ONLY, I never said one was healthier. It's just that in THIS CASE the OP ate a whole bunch of grapes, but it's okay, because it was a bunch of something light on calories. It would have been okay if they'd eaten 300ish calories of cake too. But if they'd eaten as much in weight in cake (or ice cream. Or peanut butter... only went with cake for the example because it was what that kitkat person latched onto as OMG bad) as they had in grapes, they almost certainly would have messed up their calorie goals for the day.
(grapes are superior to me only because I can stuff like a whole bowl them in my cheeks and pretend I'm a squirrel, then chomp em all down at once. I'd choke if I tried that with cake!)
(.... hahaha, do you mean RAISINS/grapes?)0 -
KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
Let me guess, you follow Freelee on Youtube?!
0 -
OP nothing wrong with this ..however, you may die from all the excess sugar..other than that, I see no issues here...0
-
CaoimheMariexo wrote: »CaoimheMariexo wrote: »Damn.
If this is referring to the direction this thread has gone, my only advice is "You'll get used to it."
Yes hahaha. I left for an hour and all this was quite shocking lol! Entertaining tho not gona lie.
I feel like there should be a thread about what topics tend to trigger debates like this, but I think that would end very poorly lol. Sorry to go off topic from your original post.
I agree. they should make a sticky that says "threads where people make baseless, false, scientifically indefensible claims will be called out by people that have research to back up, you know, actual facts and stuff. Spread inane BS at your own risk "
that would get locked by page two ….0 -
spoonyspork wrote: »
I assume that by "healthy stuff" Christine just means a typical "clean/healthy" diet of "whole foods" etc. So yeah, person B would be better off physically with regards to general health because they are getting a much better variety of macros and micros. Basing your entire diet on only cake, chocolate, and ice cream would probably not yield the most well-balanced diet, and probably wouldn't allow one to get in enough of certain required nutrients.christinev297 wrote: »KitkatcuteNYC wrote: »
That actually does not make no sense at all. So you are saying you can bunch of icecream and not have it affect you in any way?? Actually you can have as much fruits and vegetables and naturl grains you want ( and I'm talking lbs of fruit + vegetables + rice/starch a day ) and maintain and perhaps even lose weight on it. It's the meat, dairy, and excess oil, and unnecessary processed junk we put in our bodies that makes us fat!honkytonks85 wrote: »Too much food makes us fat. No food in isolation is going to make you fat as long as you maintain a deficit.
I agree with you to a point..
Person (A) could lose weight eating 1200 calories of nothing but cake, chocolate and icecream. Person (B) could also lose weight eating 1200 calories of fruit veggies and all the other healthy stuff. It's the calories that matter for losing weight. However imo person B would be healthier than person A
How would one person be healthier than the other? What markers are we looking for?
But eaten in moderation, just like all food should be whether it's "good" or "bad" food? Then you will still be healthy eating things person A eats. Totally about considering entire dietary context and not just the individual items, so if your entire context is cake that's really... not a lot of nutrition haha.
that's giving the benefit of doubt that "all the healthy stuff" contains.....whatever it is the reader hopes it contains. she specifically named fruits and veg so for all i know the only other thing she includes in all the healthy stuff is water with stevia. you can assume she means a totally balanced diet but i'm betting money that she's talking about an iron deficient diet that has barely any protein at all.
but either way, if both person A and person B both lost 50 pounds, i'm betting that all the standard health markers that get tested will have improved an equal amount.
There have been people who eat and maintain their weight on only 1 or maybe 2 foods. Their health markers are shite.
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2092071/Stacey-Irvine-17-collapses-eating-McDonalds-chicken-nuggets-age-2.html
Clearly an extreme situation, but also clearly demonstrates that dietary context requires variation to meet one's nutritional needs. This is easily met from an IIFYM lifestyle. But this is not met from only eting cookies and chocolate every day. Or from eating only bananas and apples all day.
forgive me, for i am an ignorant American. but is the Daily Mail the British version of our Enquirer? and why would a person pass out from eating nuggets and fries all day (besides from the drudgery of it all)? that's actually much better than a lot of truly starving people eat, and they are truly unhealthy but manage not to faint every day.
i'm not sure why my guy is eating only M and M's and is going up against someone eating 3 squares a day, but i'd still take the bet. pull up the daily nutritional info on 2400 cals (the amount I cut on) worth of M and M's, Raisinettes, Subway Cookies, and Ben and Jerry's Half Baked and see what it looks like. Compare it 2400 cal of apples or bananas or grapes. Which one looks significantly better? will it look as good as the 3 squares guy? heck no, but he doesn't look like he's about to become a Daily Mail headline either, does he?
I think you guys are arguing the same point, but...
(Assuming two people with 1800 cal/day diet)
Person A eats 500g of grapes. Person B eats 500g of cake.
Person A will have had:
335 cal
10% Vit A, 33% Vit C, 7% Calcium, 8% Iron, 3g Protein, 10mg Sodium, 955mg Potassium
Person B will have had:
1835 cal
9% vit A, 1% vit C, 22% Calcium, 61% Iron, 20g Protein, 1670mg Sodium, 1000mg Potassium
(note I didn't list sugar... because for some reason the non-starred 'cake' entry doesn't have sugar??)
Fairly good profile for nutrients for both with some swaps in what they're rich in, but person B has blown their calories and will need to eat WAY over to reach anything sane for nutrients... or just call it a day. And 500g of cake will not keep them full the whole day.
Basically, person A just had a small meal. Person B had a full *day*
So, it's fairly obvious why the better choice was to eat 500g of grapes. Not to say they *shouldn't* eat cake, but if you're going to eat 500g of something and want to eat more in the day and are restricting your calories, grapes are the way to go.
(note, for fun: roughly 1200 calories of grapes is 1800g, and 1200 of cake is 336g)
not an equal comparison ..
you would have to compare 500 calories of grapes to 500 calories of cake and then determine what each person did with the remaining 1300 calories for the day..
0
My apologies.
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