I need clean eating motivation and friends!
Replies
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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!
you basically just agreed with everything I have been saying.
and please explain in a clear and concise manner, exactly how I created a straw man argument…
My point, which I guess that you do not understand, is that since you don't eat twinkie and green beans in a vacuum it is impossible to say which one is healthier without know the context of the overall diet.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!"
That's absolutely true, but meeting your nutrient needs first - requires choice (or magic)!
I'm not saying exclude any food, I'm not calling any food unhealthy, I'm just saying a healthy diet requires good choice.
When your micros and certain macros are met then enjoy what you like.
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!"
unless your name is tennis dude…
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!"
unless your name is tennis dude…
Please point to one post I have ever written which disagrees with this statement.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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!"
unless your name is tennis dude…
Please point to one post I have ever written which disagrees with this statement.
good, I am glad we agree.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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!
you basically just agreed with everything I have been saying.
and please explain in a clear and concise manner, exactly how I created a straw man argument…
My point, which I guess that you do not understand, is that since you don't eat twinkie and green beans in a vacuum it is impossible to say which one is healthier without know the context of the overall diet.
My original statement was very clear, a healthy diet has everything to do with food choice and that all food is not created equally.
You said that food was 'just food' that fueled your body, period, end of story - 'I can have the clerk read it back for you if you like'
I then said!
'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.'
I'm not advocating 'not' eating twinkies and cannot remember every having done that.
You claimed all food was the same, I was pointing out it's not, different food offers different micro nutrients and choosing the right food is vital for a healthy diet!
You then started going on about twinkies and green beans and asked if they equaled each other - no they don't! But then that question was off topic from my original point.
I really am surprised you seem to think all food is the same and is just fuel????
0 -
Just think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
Actually you are wrong here. I'll explain why - once we leave certain foods from our diet we pretty much don't care about them.
I stopped eating ice cream when I was I think 14 - 15 years old. I would get severe chest congestion. The doc asked me to stop eating it for some time because they wanted to pin point the cause of these flares. Ice cream was the reason.
Anyway fast forward to 2015, I don't miss it one bit. It's been 28 years I haven't eaten ice cream.
I think most people would argue that giving up something for a medical reason isn't quite the same as giving up something because of the arbitrary "bad" label applied.
In any event, glad you figured out what the problem was!
Please refer to my response above. The question here is not about "bad food", "medical reasons", "clean whaatever". My response was to this statementJust think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
EDTA : Just to be clear where I stand w.r.t this thread. I don't think it was nice on OP's part to come to public forum and judge their friend's food diary to the world.
It was a made up situation actually. No friend has done that regularly. Sooo
0 -
I kind of thought about this thread and am kind of becoming confused. I mean its obvious that fruits are better for you than cookies (ex), and if they both add to the same calories it wouldn't really matter what you ate if all you are trying do to lose weight. But if you are trying to become healthier then wouldn't you wanna eat fruits instead of the cookies? I mean, I ate a bunch of frosted flakes yesterday morning and I felt like garbage compared to when I ate oranges, apples, and other fruits. I mean I felt kind of sluggish and sugary. So.0
-
bonnbunx36 wrote: »I kind of thought about this thread and am kind of becoming confused. I mean its obvious that fruits are better for you than cookies (ex), and if they both add to the same calories it wouldn't really matter what you ate if all you are trying do to lose weight. But if you are trying to become healthier then wouldn't you wanna eat fruits instead of the cookies? I mean, I ate a bunch of frosted flakes yesterday morning and I felt like garbage compared to when I ate oranges, apples, and other fruits. I mean I felt kind of sluggish and sugary. So.
I feel better when I have a mixture of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, and dessert. I can and have gotten much healthier eating in moderation, without labeling my food good or bad. I've never felt sugary? Which is probably a good thing I would melt in the snow if I was.0 -
Sugary, icky, gross, can't think of good adjectives. I've always had trouble expressing myself. I didn't feel as fresh(?), good(?) when I ate snacks for breakfast instead of fruits.GiveMeCoffee wrote: »bonnbunx36 wrote: »I kind of thought about this thread and am kind of becoming confused. I mean its obvious that fruits are better for you than cookies (ex), and if they both add to the same calories it wouldn't really matter what you ate if all you are trying do to lose weight. But if you are trying to become healthier then wouldn't you wanna eat fruits instead of the cookies? I mean, I ate a bunch of frosted flakes yesterday morning and I felt like garbage compared to when I ate oranges, apples, and other fruits. I mean I felt kind of sluggish and sugary. So.
I feel better when I have a mixture of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, and dessert. I can and have gotten much healthier eating in moderation, without labeling my food good or bad. I've never felt sugary? Which is probably a good thing I would melt in the snow if I was.
0 -
Just think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
Actually you are wrong here. I'll explain why - once we leave certain foods from our diet we pretty much don't care about them.
I stopped eating ice cream when I was I think 14 - 15 years old. I would get severe chest congestion. The doc asked me to stop eating it for some time because they wanted to pin point the cause of these flares. Ice cream was the reason.
Anyway fast forward to 2015, I don't miss it one bit. It's been 28 years I haven't eaten ice cream.
I think most people would argue that giving up something for a medical reason isn't quite the same as giving up something because of the arbitrary "bad" label applied.
In any event, glad you figured out what the problem was!
Please refer to my response above. The question here is not about "bad food", "medical reasons", "clean whaatever". My response was to this statementJust think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
EDTA : Just to be clear where I stand w.r.t this thread. I don't think it was nice on OP's part to come to public forum and judge their friend's food diary to the world.
It was a made up situation actually. No friend has done that regularly. Sooo
So...you made this thread on false pretense. You made it all up. Eww! Now that's dirty (and not in a good way).0 -
bonnbunx36 wrote: »I kind of thought about this thread and am kind of becoming confused. I mean its obvious that fruits are better for you than cookies (ex), and if they both add to the same calories it wouldn't really matter what you ate if all you are trying do to lose weight. But if you are trying to become healthier then wouldn't you wanna eat fruits instead of the cookies? I mean, I ate a bunch of frosted flakes yesterday morning and I felt like garbage compared to when I ate oranges, apples, and other fruits. I mean I felt kind of sluggish and sugary. So.
I don't personally notice any difference in how I feel with or without cookies. I've eaten a diet that was mostly sugar and a diet that was mostly vegetables and felt the same. I choose to eat mostly whole foods with moderate treats because I believe it's better for health but just going by how I feel there's no difference for me.0 -
Just think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
Actually you are wrong here. I'll explain why - once we leave certain foods from our diet we pretty much don't care about them.
I stopped eating ice cream when I was I think 14 - 15 years old. I would get severe chest congestion. The doc asked me to stop eating it for some time because they wanted to pin point the cause of these flares. Ice cream was the reason.
Anyway fast forward to 2015, I don't miss it one bit. It's been 28 years I haven't eaten ice cream.
I think most people would argue that giving up something for a medical reason isn't quite the same as giving up something because of the arbitrary "bad" label applied.
In any event, glad you figured out what the problem was!
Please refer to my response above. The question here is not about "bad food", "medical reasons", "clean whaatever". My response was to this statementJust think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
EDTA : Just to be clear where I stand w.r.t this thread. I don't think it was nice on OP's part to come to public forum and judge their friend's food diary to the world.
It was a made up situation actually. No friend has done that regularly. Sooo
So basically your a liar and you were just trolling to start argument.
ETA: I don't believe you made it up. Just my 2 cents.0 -
Well I guess everyone is different...maybe there is just something wrong with me.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »bonnbunx36 wrote: »I kind of thought about this thread and am kind of becoming confused. I mean its obvious that fruits are better for you than cookies (ex), and if they both add to the same calories it wouldn't really matter what you ate if all you are trying do to lose weight. But if you are trying to become healthier then wouldn't you wanna eat fruits instead of the cookies? I mean, I ate a bunch of frosted flakes yesterday morning and I felt like garbage compared to when I ate oranges, apples, and other fruits. I mean I felt kind of sluggish and sugary. So.
I don't personally notice any difference in how I feel with or without cookies. I've eaten a diet that was mostly sugar and a diet that was mostly vegetables and felt the same. I choose to eat mostly whole foods with moderate treats because I believe it's better for health but just going by how I feel there's no difference for me.0 -
Just think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
Actually you are wrong here. I'll explain why - once we leave certain foods from our diet we pretty much don't care about them.
I stopped eating ice cream when I was I think 14 - 15 years old. I would get severe chest congestion. The doc asked me to stop eating it for some time because they wanted to pin point the cause of these flares. Ice cream was the reason.
Anyway fast forward to 2015, I don't miss it one bit. It's been 28 years I haven't eaten ice cream.
I think most people would argue that giving up something for a medical reason isn't quite the same as giving up something because of the arbitrary "bad" label applied.
In any event, glad you figured out what the problem was!
Please refer to my response above. The question here is not about "bad food", "medical reasons", "clean whaatever". My response was to this statementJust think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
EDTA : Just to be clear where I stand w.r.t this thread. I don't think it was nice on OP's part to come to public forum and judge their friend's food diary to the world.
It was a made up situation actually. No friend has done that regularly. Sooo
So basically your a liar and you were just trolling to start argument.
ETA: I don't believe you made it up. Just my 2 cents.
You think OP started feeling a bit guilty whenever everyone pointed out how judgmental the cookie dough comment was? Nah... According to all the other WKs in here she was just looking for support and like minded individuals... Why would she need to backpedal now?!
0 -
Just think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
Actually you are wrong here. I'll explain why - once we leave certain foods from our diet we pretty much don't care about them.
I stopped eating ice cream when I was I think 14 - 15 years old. I would get severe chest congestion. The doc asked me to stop eating it for some time because they wanted to pin point the cause of these flares. Ice cream was the reason.
Anyway fast forward to 2015, I don't miss it one bit. It's been 28 years I haven't eaten ice cream.
I think most people would argue that giving up something for a medical reason isn't quite the same as giving up something because of the arbitrary "bad" label applied..
In any event, glad you figured out what the problem was!
Please refer to my response above. The question here is not about "bad food", "medical reasons", "clean whaatever". My response was to this statementJust think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
EDTA : Just to be clear where I stand w.r.t this thread. I don't think it was nice on OP's part to come to public forum and judge their friend's food diary to the world.
It was a made up situation actually. No friend has done that regularly. Sooo
What!!!! After all this, pretty low hon. Next time just light a fire.
0 -
Just think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
Actually you are wrong here. I'll explain why - once we leave certain foods from our diet we pretty much don't care about them.
I stopped eating ice cream when I was I think 14 - 15 years old. I would get severe chest congestion. The doc asked me to stop eating it for some time because they wanted to pin point the cause of these flares. Ice cream was the reason.
Anyway fast forward to 2015, I don't miss it one bit. It's been 28 years I haven't eaten ice cream.
I think most people would argue that giving up something for a medical reason isn't quite the same as giving up something because of the arbitrary "bad" label applied.
In any event, glad you figured out what the problem was!
Please refer to my response above. The question here is not about "bad food", "medical reasons", "clean whaatever". My response was to this statementJust think how pissed off the "clean eaters" are going to be 20 - 40 years from now (or whatever number gets them to the golden years) when they realize, it was all for nothing...
EDTA : Just to be clear where I stand w.r.t this thread. I don't think it was nice on OP's part to come to public forum and judge their friend's food diary to the world.
It was a made up situation actually. No friend has done that regularly. Sooo
So basically your a liar and you were just trolling to start argument.
ETA: I don't believe you made it up. Just my 2 cents.
You think OP started feeling a bit guilty whenever everyone pointed out how judgmental the cookie dough comment was? Nah... According to all the other WKs in here she was just looking for support and like minded individuals... Why would she need to backpedal now?!
:laugh:
MFP PLOT TWIST!0 -
Too soon?
0 -
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.
Trans fats are bad.
0 -
I'm trying to follow along with this thread... I really am. But...
0 -
...
so you are saying that 100 calories of twinkies does not equal 100 calories of green beans?
This reminds me of the nutritionist who went on a Twinkies diet to lose 27 lbs.
0 -
Oh Lordy...
My definition of clean might not be yours and vice versa.
Personally I don't really care what other people eat, and I'm certainly not going argue back and forth trying to make someone see MY point. Been there done that, because if someone feels passionately about something and they're convinced they're doing the right thing, then no amount of brow beating is going to change anything....
I'll make sure my backyard is perfect before dissecting and/or criticising someone else's
0 -
I swear, this thread is proof that some of ya'll on mfp are bullies. SMH.0
-
PrizePopple wrote: »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"
Funniest gif ever!
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Oh Lordy...
My definition of clean might not be yours and vice versa.
Personally I don't really care what other people eat, and I'm certainly not going argue back and forth trying to make someone see MY point. Been there done that, because if someone feels passionately about something and they're convinced they're doing the right thing, then no amount of brow beating is going to change anything....
I'll make sure my backyard is perfect before dissecting and/or criticising someone else's
Well, this is how I feel, and it's one reason I'd never get on a high horse and start slamming how others eat. I'm sure we all fail to live up to our own standards sometimes and feeling embarrassed or bad about that usually is not what leads to productive change. Instead, focusing logically and non emotionally on whether we are meeting our goals helps more. Good and bad associated with food is IMO counterproductive, although I have ideas about what a healthful diet (for me) looks like and sometimes think I could do better.
But I also accept that my ideas about how to eat aren't necessarily the same as my friends, so I won't start telling them that white flour is inconsistent with a good diet (it's obviously not, although FOR ME I do better minimizing it (not eliminating)). Same with other things that I choose not to eat lots of but might work for someone else in the context of their diets.
Of course, the discussion of what makes for a healthful diet isn't really what's wrong with OP's post--she and I may well have similar ideas about that, although I do think if she's going to be critical of someone else's diet it SHOULD be fair game to go through her diary and see what she does that's not what I consider ideal. I wouldn't do that, though, since it's rude and unhelpful and none of my business, since she's an adult and can evaluate her diet herself. What was terrible about her post was that she basically slammed her friends. I would have felt bad and embarrassed and betrayed if I were one of her friends (and I think I normally eat pretty well).
I'd love to hear from those arguing otherwise why any of these points are wrong, but I don't actually expect a response.
(Also, I'm on a plane! Just had to say that.)0 -
PrizePopple wrote: »
Too soon?
Too late!!! page one, second response!0 -
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.
Trans fats are bad.
Correction, artificial trans fats are bad, natural occurring ones are not...0 -
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.
Trans fats are bad.
Correction, artificial trans fats are bad, natural occurring ones are not...
what's the difference between artificial and natural? I thought trans fat was just trans fat, in any form.
0 -
over 500 responses.
I should probably avoid this thread, right?0 -
I would like you all to know that tonight I will have ice cream made with foie gras.
I'm very excited.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions