I need clean eating motivation and friends!
Replies
-
This made me laugh!SergeantSausage wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
The only food that is bad, is rotten food.ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
I like sauerkraut... basically fermented, rotten cabbage.
0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »williams969 wrote: »Look people..she stated she needed inspirational clean eating friends since that is her goal. Insulting her for not being like you says more about you, then her. Let's lift up, and not knock down. We are all in this together with different goals. If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. It is counterproductive to this site's goal, which is to help one another.
i guess you missed the part where she blasted someones food diary for having cookie dough in it...
Right? I ate cheesecake for breakfast yesterday. I'm totally a failure, and sabotaging everyone with my choices
Oh no cheesecake! (What kind and where's the pictures??)!
It was a tiramisu/cheesecake fusion thing. It was INCREDIBLE. It was one slice of this, (stashed in the freezer to hide it from hubby) leftover from Valentine's Day:
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
The only food that is bad, is rotten food.ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
I like sauerkraut... basically fermented, rotten cabbage.
I like salami0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
0 -
williams969 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »williams969 wrote: »Look people..she stated she needed inspirational clean eating friends since that is her goal. Insulting her for not being like you says more about you, then her. Let's lift up, and not knock down. We are all in this together with different goals. If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. It is counterproductive to this site's goal, which is to help one another.
i guess you missed the part where she blasted someones food diary for having cookie dough in it...
Right? I ate cheesecake for breakfast yesterday. I'm totally a failure, and sabotaging everyone with my choices
Oh no cheesecake! (What kind and where's the pictures??)!
It was a tiramisu/cheesecake fusion thing. It was INCREDIBLE. It was one slice of this, (stashed in the freezer to hide it from hubby) leftover from Valentine's Day:
Oh if that's a failure, I will gladly fail!0 -
I like the salami too!!!queenliz99 wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
The only food that is bad, is rotten food.ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
I like sauerkraut... basically fermented, rotten cabbage.
I like salami
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.0 -
williams969 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »williams969 wrote: »Look people..she stated she needed inspirational clean eating friends since that is her goal. Insulting her for not being like you says more about you, then her. Let's lift up, and not knock down. We are all in this together with different goals. If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. It is counterproductive to this site's goal, which is to help one another.
i guess you missed the part where she blasted someones food diary for having cookie dough in it...
Right? I ate cheesecake for breakfast yesterday. I'm totally a failure, and sabotaging everyone with my choices
Oh no cheesecake! (What kind and where's the pictures??)!
It was a tiramisu/cheesecake fusion thing. It was INCREDIBLE. It was one slice of this, (stashed in the freezer to hide it from hubby) leftover from Valentine's Day:
banned for posting dirty food pictures….!0 -
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
Thanks! I'm sure we will be very happy together!
0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
maybe they will get married and we can have an MFP wedding...0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
Thanks! I'm sure we will be very happy together!
Just please no breeding I wish you both well 0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
maybe they will get married and we can have an MFP wedding...
THAT falls under TMI!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
0 -
GiveMeCoffee wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
Thanks! I'm sure we will be very happy together!
Just please no breeding I wish you both well
Hey what we choose to get up to is of no business of yours.
I'm sure whatever we get up to will be defined as 'clean'
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
define "healthy"
if I eat both and hit my calorie/micro/macro target for the day then what does it matter?
no, you are never clear; or you are just being intentionally unclear…my guess is the later...0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
And I say...absent context...your statement is wrong...or at least not necessarily true.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
Thanks! I'm sure we will be very happy together!
Just please no breeding I wish you both well
Hey what we choose to get up to is of no business of yours.
I'm sure whatever we get up to will be defined as 'clean'
Here's my gift for the happy couple:0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think you and I are on the same page here.tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
You two make a good match!
Thanks! I'm sure we will be very happy together!
Just please no breeding I wish you both well
Hey what we choose to get up to is of no business of yours.
I'm sure whatever we get up to will be defined as 'clean'
0 -
Hi! I try to eat clean most of the time...lots of unprocessed veggies, proteins and carbs. I understand the basic concept of CICO, but choose to do it with more nutrient dense foods. Friend me if you want.i love to support friends, but sometimes what I see them eat makes me cringe. Cookie dough for lunch? "I stayed under my calorie goal so it's okay" Does anyone do it "right?"
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
define "healthy"
if I eat both and hit my calorie/micro/macro target for the day then what does it matter?
no, you are never clear; or you are just being intentionally unclear…my guess is the later...
[Healthier foods are those that are the most nutritionally dense - They contain the highest amounts of vitamins & minerals with the least amount of unhealthy fats & calories.
Are you claiming that green beans and twinkies are nutritional twins?
I just ran my earlier post past my 5 year old (he got it)!!!
Also, who said anything about hitting your macros for the day? I'm sure if you've made those healthier choices earlier in the day then enjoy some less healthier food, when all the other areas are covered.
But that wasn't my point and unless you are being ignorant (which I don't believe you are) you would know that.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
And I say...absent context...your statement is wrong...or at least not necessarily true.
But all food is not created equally and some are more healthier than others.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
So what is untrue about this statement?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
define "healthy"
if I eat both and hit my calorie/micro/macro target for the day then what does it matter?
no, you are never clear; or you are just being intentionally unclear…my guess is the later...
[Healthier foods are those that are the most nutritionally dense - They contain the highest amounts of vitamins & minerals with the least amount of unhealthy fats & calories.
Are you claiming that green beans and twinkies are nutritional twins?
I just ran my earlier post past my 5 year old (he got it)!!!
Also, who said anything about hitting your macros for the day? I'm sure if you've made those healthier choices earlier in the day then enjoy some less healthier food, when all the other areas are covered.
But that wasn't my point and unless you are being ignorant (which I don't believe you are) you would know that.
My point is that absent dietary context there is no way to know…
as I don't know anyone that is advocating a diet of 100% green beans or twinkies.
the answer to your question is two fold…
if you are considering them in a vacuum where nothing else happens, then yes, green beans are 'healthier'
if you are considering them in the real world where you take into account diet, training, etc, then the answer is that it depends on the overall diet.
no, I don't look at it as "health" vs "non healthy"..I look at am I hitting my calorie/micro/macro goal and what I feel like eating…
0 -
We need to go back to tiramisu cheesecake/ diabeetes cups and all the other good stuff0
-
I ate a whole pint of pistachio gelato last night. I might have to make some Diabeetus Cups in a few weeks. I'll buy organic and natural items to make it and call them "Clean Diabeetus Cups"
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
define "healthy"
if I eat both and hit my calorie/micro/macro target for the day then what does it matter?
no, you are never clear; or you are just being intentionally unclear…my guess is the later...
[Healthier foods are those that are the most nutritionally dense - They contain the highest amounts of vitamins & minerals with the least amount of unhealthy fats & calories.
Are you claiming that green beans and twinkies are nutritional twins?
I just ran my earlier post past my 5 year old (he got it)!!!
Also, who said anything about hitting your macros for the day? I'm sure if you've made those healthier choices earlier in the day then enjoy some less healthier food, when all the other areas are covered.
But that wasn't my point and unless you are being ignorant (which I don't believe you are) you would know that.
My point is that absent dietary context there is no way to know…
as I don't know anyone that is advocating a diet of 100% green beans or twinkies.
the answer to your question is two fold…
if you are considering them in a vacuum where nothing else happens, then yes, green beans are 'healthier'
if you are considering them in the real world where you take into account diet, training, etc, then the answer is that it depends on the overall diet.
no, I don't look at it as "health" vs "non healthy"..I look at am I hitting my calorie/micro/macro goal and what I feel like eating…
For a healthy diet food choice has everything to do with it.
I wouldn't exclude any food from a healthy diet (well broad beans), but the choice of quantity of particular food and macro split is important.
You do love your straw man arguments. You bought up twinkies and green beans, you also turned this into a calories issue. The calorific content of the food has nothing to do with the equation (only that at the end of the day the calorific value hits the goals set)
And you are right to not look at it as healthy and non-healthy. No food is non-healthy!
0 -
williams969 wrote: »Look people..she stated she needed inspirational clean eating friends since that is her goal. Insulting her for not being like you says more about you, then her. Let's lift up, and not knock down. We are all in this together with different goals. If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. It is counterproductive to this site's goal, which is to help one another.
i guess you missed the part where she blasted someones food diary for having cookie dough in it...
Right? I ate cheesecake for breakfast yesterday. I'm totally a failure, and sabotaging everyone with my choices
CHAOS!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
define "healthy"
if I eat both and hit my calorie/micro/macro target for the day then what does it matter?
no, you are never clear; or you are just being intentionally unclear…my guess is the later...
^This reminds me of this quote from Eric Helms:
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!"0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The thing is, everyone's standard for food is not the same, and I think that's why people on both sides aren't going to understand. What someone may think of as being fine to eat someone else may consider "bad" to eat. I mean, there were a couple instances I had 70% dark chocolate at breakfast. It wasn't even that much (less than an ounce), but a couple people (not on MFP) that knew I ate that thought that I shouldn't be doing that at breakfast.
i guess you still don't get it..
food is not good or bad, so there is no need to assign a moralistic value to it.
food is just energy that fuels your body, period, end of story.
But all food is not created equally and some is more healthier than other.
Food choice has everything to do with a healthy diet.
Now weight loss and body comp, that has less to do with food choice.
Weight loss - purely calories.
Body comp - macros.
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
I have never once argued against the bolded part.
I'm saying a hundred calories from green beans is healthier than 100 calories from twinkies.
I thought it was quite clear what I was saying?
define "healthy"
if I eat both and hit my calorie/micro/macro target for the day then what does it matter?
no, you are never clear; or you are just being intentionally unclear…my guess is the later...
^This reminds me of this quote from Eric Helms:
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!"
QFT!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
- 427 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