Can I petition MFP users to use the terms "more ideal" and "less ideal" instead of good/bad foods?
Replies
-
I prefer calling it what it is. Not going to be a popular opinion, but most of us are here to lose weight, not sugar-coat things. Some food is straight-up bad for you, and you feeling less bad about eating it isn't going to help you at all.
You understand that all of us that are saying there is no such thing as bad food are either losing or have lost their excess weight just fine, right??
But please, explain what these bad foods are, and how it is that they are bad for you, taking context and dose into account (ie, if you are meeting your nutritional requirements).0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »Regardless of how you refer to your food it's either clean and healthy or it isn't. We all eat from both sides. Kind of a silly post IMO.
Exactly. The only difference is that one group enjoys every bite of it guilt free while people in the other group feel like they are "eating crap".
If it's guilt free, why get so upset when someone else uses a word like bad or junk? The whole thing, between both threads, seems like a Twitter brigade having a hissy because someone said Harry Styles is ugly.
I think at least some of them get upset because they know the foods really aren't healthy. And instead of just admitting that and deciding to ignore the risk and enjoy it or only have it once in a while to minimize the risk, they want to pretend junk is not junk. Other people pointing out that certain foods are actually unhealthy makes it harder for them to do that.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Have you heard of the definition of insanity?0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »Regardless of how you refer to your food it's either clean and healthy or it isn't. We all eat from both sides. Kind of a silly post IMO.
Exactly. The only difference is that one group enjoys every bite of it guilt free while people in the other group feel like they are "eating crap".
If it's guilt free, why get so upset when someone else uses a word like bad or junk? The whole thing, between both threads, seems like a Twitter brigade having a hissy because someone said Harry Styles is ugly.
I think at least some of them get upset because they know the foods really aren't healthy. And instead of just admitting that and deciding to ignore the risk and enjoy it or only have it once in a while to minimize the risk, they want to pretend junk is not junk. Other people pointing out that certain foods are actually unhealthy makes it harder for them to do that.
Um, no.0 -
0
-
i love term good food and bad food, or maybe I just love the fact it causes so much irrational frustration.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
You are not getting the part below. Note the article talks specifically about gaining weight. It is the same thing you want to do when you have excess calories after you meet your macro/micro goals. You should be focusing on nutrient rich foods most of the time if you have "surplus" calories. Does that say you can't have cookies, of course not. Just maybe fruit and yogurt for example to get you extra calories 80% of the time and cookies, cake, etc the other 20%.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
It's already been said, but you don't get extra credit in nutrition. You can end up with really expensive pee, though.
I can't imagine trying to choke down 500 or more calories of broccoli instead of some ice cream or cookies after macros and micros are met, so I don't. And, mind-blowingly, sometimes I use donuts or ice cream to hit my fat macro if that's what I'm low on for the day.
Not according to this peer reviewed article on WedMD. Article is specifically talking about gaining weight, but it is telling you how to "fill in" to get to your calorie goal:
Calories Count, But So Do Nutrients
Focus on healthy foods to gain weight, because even though you have more leeway with calories, good nutrition still rules.
"Weight gain requires eating calorie-rich but also nutrient-rich foods -- not just high-calorie foods with lots of fat, sugar, or empty calories," says Alice Bender, RD, nutrition communications manager for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The goal is to choose foods that are packed with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and calories so each bite is loaded with good nutrition.
"Start with nutritious foods and then wherever you can, enrich the foods with additional ingredients like yogurt, fruit, nuts, and healthy fats," Escott-Stump says.
Complete article:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-to-gain-weight
Again, an occasional few cookies, etc is fine, you shouldn't be using calorie dense nutrient light foods to fill a surplus calorie need after getting your macros.
Filling surplus calories with nutritionally poor foods on a regular basis may not impact you weight, but can have negative impacts on blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
"Not just" indicates that they are not advocating those who are trying to gain weight to eat solely those things, but instead focus on... wait, you guessed it... hitting their macro and micro goals for the day and then eating whatever. I'm sure it's very easy to be tempted to hear the words "bulk" or "gaining weight" and assume you can eat whatever you want, but this RD is saying no, eat your fruits and vegetables, too.
I'm not sure how this is saying anything different and in seriousness, have you ever done enough exercise where you end up with 1,000+ extra calories and tried to fill that with micro-nutrient dense foods? This is how we get the people who cannot eat 1,200 calories asking what they should do because you feel full.
Isn't that exactly what we've been saying all along? That most of the calories would come from highly nutritious foods and some of them can come from less nutritious foods?
See? There is barely any difference between your approach and mine. The only difference is in the mindset. While I do try to focus on nutritious foods (80% of that time as you would call it) I don't feel the other 20% is necessarily bad. .
I have gotten the idea from many of these posts that people are saying once you hit your macro/micro requirements you're good to fill any remaining calories with less nutrient dense foods i.e, crap exclusively. I say, and I think most nutrition authorities would tell you, the "extra" calories should come mostly (80/20, 75/25 whatever) from nutrient dense foods and the reminder from whatever. This does not have to be on a daily basis, but should be the case long term.
What you fill your macro/micro requirements with already comes from nutrient dense foods. If the rest was made up of 80% nutrient dense food, you'd be at 96% nutrient dense food.
And that would be a good thing.
Care to open your diary so we can confirm that you eat 96% nutrient dense foods, and also understand what counts as "nutrient dense"?
Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »Regardless of how you refer to your food it's either clean and healthy or it isn't. We all eat from both sides. Kind of a silly post IMO.
Exactly. The only difference is that one group enjoys every bite of it guilt free while people in the other group feel like they are "eating crap".
If it's guilt free, why get so upset when someone else uses a word like bad or junk? The whole thing, between both threads, seems like a Twitter brigade having a hissy because someone said Harry Styles is ugly.
I think at least some of them get upset because they know the foods really aren't healthy. And instead of just admitting that and deciding to ignore the risk and enjoy it or only have it once in a while to minimize the risk, they want to pretend junk is not junk. Other people pointing out that certain foods are actually unhealthy makes it harder for them to do that.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Okay so let's see. I only bothered to go back 4 days.Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
You are not getting the part below. Note the article talks specifically about gaining weight. It is the same thing you want to do when you have excess calories after you meet your macro/micro goals. You should be focusing on nutrient rich foods most of the time if you have "surplus" calories. Does that say you can't have cookies, of course not. Just maybe fruit and yogurt for example to get you extra calories 80% of the time and cookies, cake, etc the other 20%.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
It's already been said, but you don't get extra credit in nutrition. You can end up with really expensive pee, though.
I can't imagine trying to choke down 500 or more calories of broccoli instead of some ice cream or cookies after macros and micros are met, so I don't. And, mind-blowingly, sometimes I use donuts or ice cream to hit my fat macro if that's what I'm low on for the day.
Not according to this peer reviewed article on WedMD. Article is specifically talking about gaining weight, but it is telling you how to "fill in" to get to your calorie goal:
Calories Count, But So Do Nutrients
Focus on healthy foods to gain weight, because even though you have more leeway with calories, good nutrition still rules.
"Weight gain requires eating calorie-rich but also nutrient-rich foods -- not just high-calorie foods with lots of fat, sugar, or empty calories," says Alice Bender, RD, nutrition communications manager for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The goal is to choose foods that are packed with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and calories so each bite is loaded with good nutrition.
"Start with nutritious foods and then wherever you can, enrich the foods with additional ingredients like yogurt, fruit, nuts, and healthy fats," Escott-Stump says.
Complete article:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-to-gain-weight
Again, an occasional few cookies, etc is fine, you shouldn't be using calorie dense nutrient light foods to fill a surplus calorie need after getting your macros.
Filling surplus calories with nutritionally poor foods on a regular basis may not impact you weight, but can have negative impacts on blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
"Not just" indicates that they are not advocating those who are trying to gain weight to eat solely those things, but instead focus on... wait, you guessed it... hitting their macro and micro goals for the day and then eating whatever. I'm sure it's very easy to be tempted to hear the words "bulk" or "gaining weight" and assume you can eat whatever you want, but this RD is saying no, eat your fruits and vegetables, too.
I'm not sure how this is saying anything different and in seriousness, have you ever done enough exercise where you end up with 1,000+ extra calories and tried to fill that with micro-nutrient dense foods? This is how we get the people who cannot eat 1,200 calories asking what they should do because you feel full.
Isn't that exactly what we've been saying all along? That most of the calories would come from highly nutritious foods and some of them can come from less nutritious foods?
See? There is barely any difference between your approach and mine. The only difference is in the mindset. While I do try to focus on nutritious foods (80% of that time as you would call it) I don't feel the other 20% is necessarily bad. .
I have gotten the idea from many of these posts that people are saying once you hit your macro/micro requirements you're good to fill any remaining calories with less nutrient dense foods i.e, crap exclusively. I say, and I think most nutrition authorities would tell you, the "extra" calories should come mostly (80/20, 75/25 whatever) from nutrient dense foods and the reminder from whatever. This does not have to be on a daily basis, but should be the case long term.
What you fill your macro/micro requirements with already comes from nutrient dense foods. If the rest was made up of 80% nutrient dense food, you'd be at 96% nutrient dense food.
And that would be a good thing.
Care to open your diary so we can confirm that you eat 96% nutrient dense foods, and also understand what counts as "nutrient dense"?
Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
Thursday
California pizza for 900 calories that you somehow only at .99 of it not the whole thing.
You at 2,767 calories for the day
The pizza was 32% of you whole days calories.
Friday
You ate pizza for 1,450 calories
Your total calories for the day 3,317
The pizza was 43% of you days intake
Saturday
Pulled pork sandwich for 540 calories. Lots of cholesterol in there right?
Fries for 540 calories.
Total calories for the day 2,717
Pork sandwich and fries was 39% of your days calories
Today
Pizza for 920 calories
So far you've eaten 1,662 calories
Pizza 55% of your daily calories so far
Pizza 3 out of 4 days and the other pork sandwich and fries and you want to sit here judging other people saying they should eat mostly "good food" and when we mention the things that are the same as you eat you criticize it. Wow, just wow.
And he posted links on foods that will raise blood pressure (salty fries) and fried food (fries)..
(Yes, I know, salt is only a problem if you already have a blood pressure problem)
and are high in cholesterol... cheese, pork.
Now I have no problem with him eating these things, I just wanna know why he's being such a pita troll about everything if he doesn't really believe what he's writing.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Okay so let's see. I only bothered to go back 4 days.Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
You are not getting the part below. Note the article talks specifically about gaining weight. It is the same thing you want to do when you have excess calories after you meet your macro/micro goals. You should be focusing on nutrient rich foods most of the time if you have "surplus" calories. Does that say you can't have cookies, of course not. Just maybe fruit and yogurt for example to get you extra calories 80% of the time and cookies, cake, etc the other 20%.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
It's already been said, but you don't get extra credit in nutrition. You can end up with really expensive pee, though.
I can't imagine trying to choke down 500 or more calories of broccoli instead of some ice cream or cookies after macros and micros are met, so I don't. And, mind-blowingly, sometimes I use donuts or ice cream to hit my fat macro if that's what I'm low on for the day.
Not according to this peer reviewed article on WedMD. Article is specifically talking about gaining weight, but it is telling you how to "fill in" to get to your calorie goal:
Calories Count, But So Do Nutrients
Focus on healthy foods to gain weight, because even though you have more leeway with calories, good nutrition still rules.
"Weight gain requires eating calorie-rich but also nutrient-rich foods -- not just high-calorie foods with lots of fat, sugar, or empty calories," says Alice Bender, RD, nutrition communications manager for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The goal is to choose foods that are packed with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and calories so each bite is loaded with good nutrition.
"Start with nutritious foods and then wherever you can, enrich the foods with additional ingredients like yogurt, fruit, nuts, and healthy fats," Escott-Stump says.
Complete article:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-to-gain-weight
Again, an occasional few cookies, etc is fine, you shouldn't be using calorie dense nutrient light foods to fill a surplus calorie need after getting your macros.
Filling surplus calories with nutritionally poor foods on a regular basis may not impact you weight, but can have negative impacts on blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
"Not just" indicates that they are not advocating those who are trying to gain weight to eat solely those things, but instead focus on... wait, you guessed it... hitting their macro and micro goals for the day and then eating whatever. I'm sure it's very easy to be tempted to hear the words "bulk" or "gaining weight" and assume you can eat whatever you want, but this RD is saying no, eat your fruits and vegetables, too.
I'm not sure how this is saying anything different and in seriousness, have you ever done enough exercise where you end up with 1,000+ extra calories and tried to fill that with micro-nutrient dense foods? This is how we get the people who cannot eat 1,200 calories asking what they should do because you feel full.
Isn't that exactly what we've been saying all along? That most of the calories would come from highly nutritious foods and some of them can come from less nutritious foods?
See? There is barely any difference between your approach and mine. The only difference is in the mindset. While I do try to focus on nutritious foods (80% of that time as you would call it) I don't feel the other 20% is necessarily bad. .
I have gotten the idea from many of these posts that people are saying once you hit your macro/micro requirements you're good to fill any remaining calories with less nutrient dense foods i.e, crap exclusively. I say, and I think most nutrition authorities would tell you, the "extra" calories should come mostly (80/20, 75/25 whatever) from nutrient dense foods and the reminder from whatever. This does not have to be on a daily basis, but should be the case long term.
What you fill your macro/micro requirements with already comes from nutrient dense foods. If the rest was made up of 80% nutrient dense food, you'd be at 96% nutrient dense food.
And that would be a good thing.
Care to open your diary so we can confirm that you eat 96% nutrient dense foods, and also understand what counts as "nutrient dense"?
Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
Thursday
California pizza for 900 calories that you somehow only at .99 of it not the whole thing.
You at 2,767 calories for the day
The pizza was 32% of you whole days calories.
Friday
You ate pizza for 1,450 calories
Your total calories for the day 3,317
The pizza was 43% of you days intake
Saturday
Pulled pork sandwich for 540 calories. Lots of cholesterol in there right?
Fries for 540 calories.
Total calories for the day 2,717
Pork sandwich and fries was 39% of your days calories
Today
Pizza for 920 calories
So far you've eaten 1,662 calories
Pizza 55% of your daily calories so far
Pizza 3 out of 4 days and the other pork sandwich and fries and you want to sit here judging other people saying they should eat mostly "good food" and when we mention the things that are the same as you eat you criticize it. Wow, just wow.
You can look back a bit more if you want or not, not a usual sample. I never said in any post I was "perfect", just said to call crap food as it is.
If you are worried about my health I just had a physical, all blood work and blood pressure was in normal range with no medication as it has for my whole life.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Okay so let's see. I only bothered to go back 4 days.Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
You are not getting the part below. Note the article talks specifically about gaining weight. It is the same thing you want to do when you have excess calories after you meet your macro/micro goals. You should be focusing on nutrient rich foods most of the time if you have "surplus" calories. Does that say you can't have cookies, of course not. Just maybe fruit and yogurt for example to get you extra calories 80% of the time and cookies, cake, etc the other 20%.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
It's already been said, but you don't get extra credit in nutrition. You can end up with really expensive pee, though.
I can't imagine trying to choke down 500 or more calories of broccoli instead of some ice cream or cookies after macros and micros are met, so I don't. And, mind-blowingly, sometimes I use donuts or ice cream to hit my fat macro if that's what I'm low on for the day.
Not according to this peer reviewed article on WedMD. Article is specifically talking about gaining weight, but it is telling you how to "fill in" to get to your calorie goal:
Calories Count, But So Do Nutrients
Focus on healthy foods to gain weight, because even though you have more leeway with calories, good nutrition still rules.
"Weight gain requires eating calorie-rich but also nutrient-rich foods -- not just high-calorie foods with lots of fat, sugar, or empty calories," says Alice Bender, RD, nutrition communications manager for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The goal is to choose foods that are packed with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and calories so each bite is loaded with good nutrition.
"Start with nutritious foods and then wherever you can, enrich the foods with additional ingredients like yogurt, fruit, nuts, and healthy fats," Escott-Stump says.
Complete article:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-to-gain-weight
Again, an occasional few cookies, etc is fine, you shouldn't be using calorie dense nutrient light foods to fill a surplus calorie need after getting your macros.
Filling surplus calories with nutritionally poor foods on a regular basis may not impact you weight, but can have negative impacts on blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
"Not just" indicates that they are not advocating those who are trying to gain weight to eat solely those things, but instead focus on... wait, you guessed it... hitting their macro and micro goals for the day and then eating whatever. I'm sure it's very easy to be tempted to hear the words "bulk" or "gaining weight" and assume you can eat whatever you want, but this RD is saying no, eat your fruits and vegetables, too.
I'm not sure how this is saying anything different and in seriousness, have you ever done enough exercise where you end up with 1,000+ extra calories and tried to fill that with micro-nutrient dense foods? This is how we get the people who cannot eat 1,200 calories asking what they should do because you feel full.
Isn't that exactly what we've been saying all along? That most of the calories would come from highly nutritious foods and some of them can come from less nutritious foods?
See? There is barely any difference between your approach and mine. The only difference is in the mindset. While I do try to focus on nutritious foods (80% of that time as you would call it) I don't feel the other 20% is necessarily bad. .
I have gotten the idea from many of these posts that people are saying once you hit your macro/micro requirements you're good to fill any remaining calories with less nutrient dense foods i.e, crap exclusively. I say, and I think most nutrition authorities would tell you, the "extra" calories should come mostly (80/20, 75/25 whatever) from nutrient dense foods and the reminder from whatever. This does not have to be on a daily basis, but should be the case long term.
What you fill your macro/micro requirements with already comes from nutrient dense foods. If the rest was made up of 80% nutrient dense food, you'd be at 96% nutrient dense food.
And that would be a good thing.
Care to open your diary so we can confirm that you eat 96% nutrient dense foods, and also understand what counts as "nutrient dense"?
Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
Thursday
California pizza for 900 calories that you somehow only at .99 of it not the whole thing.
You at 2,767 calories for the day
The pizza was 32% of you whole days calories.
Friday
You ate pizza for 1,450 calories
Your total calories for the day 3,317
The pizza was 43% of you days intake
Saturday
Pulled pork sandwich for 540 calories. Lots of cholesterol in there right?
Fries for 540 calories.
Total calories for the day 2,717
Pork sandwich and fries was 39% of your days calories
Today
Pizza for 920 calories
So far you've eaten 1,662 calories
Pizza 55% of your daily calories so far
Pizza 3 out of 4 days and the other pork sandwich and fries and you want to sit here judging other people saying they should eat mostly "good food" and when we mention the things that are the same as you eat you criticize it. Wow, just wow.
You can look back a bit more if you want or not, not a usual sample. I never said in any post I was "perfect", just said to call crap food as it is.
If you are worried about my health I just had a physical, all blood work and blood pressure was in normal range with no medication as it has for my whole life.
Soooo, that "crap" food isn't actually doing you any harm then?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
..Packerjohn wrote: »
Okay so let's see. I only bothered to go back 4 days.Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
You are not getting the part below. Note the article talks specifically about gaining weight. It is the same thing you want to do when you have excess calories after you meet your macro/micro goals. You should be focusing on nutrient rich foods most of the time if you have "surplus" calories. Does that say you can't have cookies, of course not. Just maybe fruit and yogurt for example to get you extra calories 80% of the time and cookies, cake, etc the other 20%.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
It's already been said, but you don't get extra credit in nutrition. You can end up with really expensive pee, though.
I can't imagine trying to choke down 500 or more calories of broccoli instead of some ice cream or cookies after macros and micros are met, so I don't. And, mind-blowingly, sometimes I use donuts or ice cream to hit my fat macro if that's what I'm low on for the day.
Not according to this peer reviewed article on WedMD. Article is specifically talking about gaining weight, but it is telling you how to "fill in" to get to your calorie goal:
Calories Count, But So Do Nutrients
Focus on healthy foods to gain weight, because even though you have more leeway with calories, good nutrition still rules.
"Weight gain requires eating calorie-rich but also nutrient-rich foods -- not just high-calorie foods with lots of fat, sugar, or empty calories," says Alice Bender, RD, nutrition communications manager for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The goal is to choose foods that are packed with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and calories so each bite is loaded with good nutrition.
"Start with nutritious foods and then wherever you can, enrich the foods with additional ingredients like yogurt, fruit, nuts, and healthy fats," Escott-Stump says.
Complete article:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-to-gain-weight
Again, an occasional few cookies, etc is fine, you shouldn't be using calorie dense nutrient light foods to fill a surplus calorie need after getting your macros.
Filling surplus calories with nutritionally poor foods on a regular basis may not impact you weight, but can have negative impacts on blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
"Not just" indicates that they are not advocating those who are trying to gain weight to eat solely those things, but instead focus on... wait, you guessed it... hitting their macro and micro goals for the day and then eating whatever. I'm sure it's very easy to be tempted to hear the words "bulk" or "gaining weight" and assume you can eat whatever you want, but this RD is saying no, eat your fruits and vegetables, too.
I'm not sure how this is saying anything different and in seriousness, have you ever done enough exercise where you end up with 1,000+ extra calories and tried to fill that with micro-nutrient dense foods? This is how we get the people who cannot eat 1,200 calories asking what they should do because you feel full.
Isn't that exactly what we've been saying all along? That most of the calories would come from highly nutritious foods and some of them can come from less nutritious foods?
See? There is barely any difference between your approach and mine. The only difference is in the mindset. While I do try to focus on nutritious foods (80% of that time as you would call it) I don't feel the other 20% is necessarily bad. .
I have gotten the idea from many of these posts that people are saying once you hit your macro/micro requirements you're good to fill any remaining calories with less nutrient dense foods i.e, crap exclusively. I say, and I think most nutrition authorities would tell you, the "extra" calories should come mostly (80/20, 75/25 whatever) from nutrient dense foods and the reminder from whatever. This does not have to be on a daily basis, but should be the case long term.
What you fill your macro/micro requirements with already comes from nutrient dense foods. If the rest was made up of 80% nutrient dense food, you'd be at 96% nutrient dense food.
And that would be a good thing.
Care to open your diary so we can confirm that you eat 96% nutrient dense foods, and also understand what counts as "nutrient dense"?
Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
Thursday
California pizza for 900 calories that you somehow only at .99 of it not the whole thing.
You at 2,767 calories for the day
The pizza was 32% of you whole days calories.
Friday
You ate pizza for 1,450 calories
Your total calories for the day 3,317
The pizza was 43% of you days intake
Saturday
Pulled pork sandwich for 540 calories. Lots of cholesterol in there right?
Fries for 540 calories.
Total calories for the day 2,717
Pork sandwich and fries was 39% of your days calories
Today
Pizza for 920 calories
So far you've eaten 1,662 calories
Pizza 55% of your daily calories so far
Pizza 3 out of 4 days and the other pork sandwich and fries and you want to sit here judging other people saying they should eat mostly "good food" and when we mention the things that are the same as you eat you criticize it. Wow, just wow.
You can look back a bit more if you want or not, not a usual sample. I never said in any post I was "perfect", just said to call crap food as it is.
If you are worried about my health I just had a physical, all blood work and blood pressure was in normal range with no medication as it has for my whole life.
You have no credibility at this point.
You're backtracking. The people you're debating with have great bloodwork too. For the record, blood pressure problems are sometimes genetic, as are cholesterol problems. You could have the greatest diet in the world and do everything right and still have the dice roll against you that way.
Back to the point I was making, you've gone to great pains to prove that you should always make the choice for "good" food, and here you go and spend a HUGE chunk of your calories on what you call "crap".
Does it make you feel better to have everyone else call what they do eating crap too, so you have company when you beat yourself up over it? What exactly has been your point this whole time?
0 -
I am totally fine with someone stating opinions / goals / advice even if they are not able or don't succeed at heeding that advice all the time (or even some of the time). I can argue that pizza is bad (note: I do NOT make that argument in any way shape or form) and still eat pizza. It just means I am not hitting the goals or aspirations I may set for myself and may advise others to hit.
Not hypocritical or credibility-destroying at all, IMHO - again, just means I can't make the high bar I idealize as a goal for myself and others.
That said:Packerjohn wrote: »Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
I suspect many active posters in this thread are still waiting for a coherent argument about what constitutes "crap food" that is supported by something other than random internet articles, especially for those people without pre-existing conditions that might call for lowered sodium intake (for example), or for other dietary restrictions. I really haven't seen it yet but then again I am only half paying attention to substantive comments, where they're found, in this glorious thread. I do see a lot of assertions about "bad" food, or "junk" food, or "good" food, or "healthy" food - but no clearly articulated arguments about how one arrives at these subjective descriptions of various types of food, at least not ones that are grounded in anything other than "it's common sense" or "because it's obvious" sorts of feels. But maybe the circular arguments will kick in again and we can to the point of some really creative gifs this time around!
0 -
Nope, still ignores context. A food that is ideal in one situation would be unideal in another.
And now to read the....ten pages.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »Regardless of how you refer to your food it's either clean and healthy or it isn't. We all eat from both sides. Kind of a silly post IMO.
Exactly. The only difference is that one group enjoys every bite of it guilt free while people in the other group feel like they are "eating crap".
If it's guilt free, why get so upset when someone else uses a word like bad or junk? The whole thing, between both threads, seems like a Twitter brigade having a hissy because someone said Harry Styles is ugly.
I think at least some of them get upset because they know the foods really aren't healthy. And instead of just admitting that and deciding to ignore the risk and enjoy it or only have it once in a while to minimize the risk, they want to pretend junk is not junk. Other people pointing out that certain foods are actually unhealthy makes it harder for them to do that.
Nope. I've changed my behavior in the past based on risks I'm sufficiently convinced about--it's why I don't eat trans fats or much fried food (not saying anyone should come to the same conclusions I have, and the fried thing has as much to do with calories). Thus, I might well change my consumption of other things, like added sugar or sugar in general or red meat or dairy fat or eggs or sodium if I were convinced that the levels I currently am at are overly risky. So far the evidence for those claims has been basically "oh, well you just know it is," which doesn't impress me.
Beyond that, I argue about bad vs. good for the reasons I think (a) it's an overly simplistic and, indeed, rather ignorant way of viewing nutrition that is not helpful to the creation of a truly healthful diet (the "bad" food proponents talk a lot more about how bad Oreos are--usually while eating a lot more of them than I do--and very little about vegetables they like to eat or how they get enough protein or fiber, etc.); and (b) I think it can have bad psychological effects (again, which were outlined in a post that no "bad food" proponent addressed at all). I have been quite open and clear about how I structure my diet, and how I include so-called "junk," so if someone wants to criticize the specifics, feel free. I also don't always meet my own goals, but lucky for me I don't think that perfection is needed to eat in a generally healthful way.
Of course, this is in part a justification--I really argue about these things because it's entertaining. I'm sure that says something bad about me, but oh well.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've changed my behavior in the past based on risks I'm sufficiently convinced about--it's why I don't eat trans fats or much fried food (not saying anyone should come to the same conclusions I have, and the fried thing has as much to do with calories).
Are you saying foods high in trans fats are bad?
0 -
I am totally fine with someone stating opinions / goals / advice even if they are not able or don't succeed at heeding that advice all the time (or even some of the time). I can argue that pizza is bad (note: I do NOT make that argument in any way shape or form) and still eat pizza. It just means I am not hitting the goals or aspirations I may set for myself and may advise others to hit.
Not hypocritical or credibility-destroying at all, IMHO - again, just means I can't make the high bar I idealize as a goal for myself and others.
That said:Packerjohn wrote: »Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
I suspect many active posters in this thread are still waiting for a coherent argument about what constitutes "crap food" that is supported by something other than random internet articles, especially for those people without pre-existing conditions that might call for lowered sodium intake (for example), or for other dietary restrictions. I really haven't seen it yet but then again I am only half paying attention to substantive comments, where they're found, in this glorious thread. I do see a lot of assertions about "bad" food, or "junk" food, or "good" food, or "healthy" food - but no clearly articulated arguments about how one arrives at these subjective descriptions of various types of food, at least not ones that are grounded in anything other than "it's common sense" or "because it's obvious" sorts of feels. But maybe the circular arguments will kick in again and we can to the point of some really creative gifs this time around!
Aside from getting into the fact that I disagree with your opening line but I'll take the angle that I can see how people can accept that but to have someone spends pages and pages trying to argue against everyone by claiming that we shouldn't eat dessert daily or that those few discretionary calories we have left at the end of the day should be mostly used on "healthy food" and cholesterol and blood pressure blah blah blah and also flip flopping all over the thread to then at the end reveal that he probably disregards what he preaches to more of an extreme than probably everyone in the thread, that is hypocrisy. No other way around it.
^This. I have a lot of sympathy for people aspiring to goals and not always being able to live up to them. I don't have sympathy for what was done in this thread. I think a line was crossed when he came in and pulled the nonsense about trying to prove that discretionary calories should be spent on even more nutritionally dense food and then showed his food diary.
Nope. Too much hypocrisy.
0 -
I am totally fine with someone stating opinions / goals / advice even if they are not able or don't succeed at heeding that advice all the time (or even some of the time). I can argue that pizza is bad (note: I do NOT make that argument in any way shape or form) and still eat pizza. It just means I am not hitting the goals or aspirations I may set for myself and may advise others to hit.
Not hypocritical or credibility-destroying at all, IMHO - again, just means I can't make the high bar I idealize as a goal for myself and others.
That said:Packerjohn wrote: »Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
I suspect many active posters in this thread are still waiting for a coherent argument about what constitutes "crap food" that is supported by something other than random internet articles, especially for those people without pre-existing conditions that might call for lowered sodium intake (for example), or for other dietary restrictions. I really haven't seen it yet but then again I am only half paying attention to substantive comments, where they're found, in this glorious thread. I do see a lot of assertions about "bad" food, or "junk" food, or "good" food, or "healthy" food - but no clearly articulated arguments about how one arrives at these subjective descriptions of various types of food, at least not ones that are grounded in anything other than "it's common sense" or "because it's obvious" sorts of feels. But maybe the circular arguments will kick in again and we can to the point of some really creative gifs this time around!
Aside from getting into the fact that I disagree with your opening line but I'll take the angle that I can see how people can accept that but to have someone spends pages and pages trying to argue against everyone by claiming that we shouldn't eat dessert daily or that those few discretionary calories we have left at the end of the day should be mostly used on "healthy food" and cholesterol and blood pressure blah blah blah and also flip flopping all over the thread to then at the end reveal that he probably disregards what he preaches to more of an extreme than probably everyone in the thread, that is hypocrisy. No other way around it.
Oh, I get your general point. I just don't think it's hypocrisy to advise "eat this way" and then not eat that way. I'm sure others have had the experience of having, for example, a smoker tell them "don't smoke; it's bad for your health." The fact that she smokes doesn't undercut the advice she's giving - it just means that she either can't or chooses not to take that advice herself.
Now, repeatedly asserting "this is bad" "this is healthy" "this is junk" about food in isolation without any sort of coherent argument supporting such assertions . . . I'll stop here since I am getting dangerously close to engaging substantively in this debate which is something I try to avoid unless I am having too much fun to stop, and sadly, I'm not near that point just yet (but about to open a bottle of prosecco, so we shall see!)
0 -
Capt_Apollo wrote: »
Remember when there were just 150?0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »
Well, there's always the age-old "muscle weighs more than fat debate," or we could go back to people who don't know the difference between "lose" and "loose."
Don't forget "only water is water" argument.0 -
I haven't waded through all 10 pages, but there cannot be something which is "more ideal".
Ideal means perfect.
Perfect is an absolute. You can't get more perfect than perfect.
Something can be less than ideal.
https://www.google.com/#q=definition+ideal0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Okay so let's see. I only bothered to go back 4 days.Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
You are not getting the part below. Note the article talks specifically about gaining weight. It is the same thing you want to do when you have excess calories after you meet your macro/micro goals. You should be focusing on nutrient rich foods most of the time if you have "surplus" calories. Does that say you can't have cookies, of course not. Just maybe fruit and yogurt for example to get you extra calories 80% of the time and cookies, cake, etc the other 20%.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »What are you calling "requirements"? The CDC says men should get 56g of protein a day
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I think if you talk to most people that lift weights or train people that lift they will recommend more protein. I would suggest that eating protein with the "extra" calories would make you healthier than filling in the calories with Ding Dongs, Cheetos, etc.
You're making the assumption that macro and micro goals aren't met first, but that isn't what's being advocated. What is being said is once your macro and micro goals are met then eat ice cream, Oreos, etc.
Edited to fix quotes as best I can.
Say you meet your macro and micro goals daily and have 500 calories "left over". If you go to a nutrition expert and ask them the best way to fill in the additional calories do you think they will say Ding Dongs, ice cream, etc on a daily basis. Or do you think they will say eat a bit more of the nutritionally dense foods you are eating and occasionally have a treat?
It's already been said, but you don't get extra credit in nutrition. You can end up with really expensive pee, though.
I can't imagine trying to choke down 500 or more calories of broccoli instead of some ice cream or cookies after macros and micros are met, so I don't. And, mind-blowingly, sometimes I use donuts or ice cream to hit my fat macro if that's what I'm low on for the day.
Not according to this peer reviewed article on WedMD. Article is specifically talking about gaining weight, but it is telling you how to "fill in" to get to your calorie goal:
Calories Count, But So Do Nutrients
Focus on healthy foods to gain weight, because even though you have more leeway with calories, good nutrition still rules.
"Weight gain requires eating calorie-rich but also nutrient-rich foods -- not just high-calorie foods with lots of fat, sugar, or empty calories," says Alice Bender, RD, nutrition communications manager for the American Institute for Cancer Research.
The goal is to choose foods that are packed with vitamins, minerals, nutrients, and calories so each bite is loaded with good nutrition.
"Start with nutritious foods and then wherever you can, enrich the foods with additional ingredients like yogurt, fruit, nuts, and healthy fats," Escott-Stump says.
Complete article:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-to-gain-weight
Again, an occasional few cookies, etc is fine, you shouldn't be using calorie dense nutrient light foods to fill a surplus calorie need after getting your macros.
Filling surplus calories with nutritionally poor foods on a regular basis may not impact you weight, but can have negative impacts on blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
"Not just" indicates that they are not advocating those who are trying to gain weight to eat solely those things, but instead focus on... wait, you guessed it... hitting their macro and micro goals for the day and then eating whatever. I'm sure it's very easy to be tempted to hear the words "bulk" or "gaining weight" and assume you can eat whatever you want, but this RD is saying no, eat your fruits and vegetables, too.
I'm not sure how this is saying anything different and in seriousness, have you ever done enough exercise where you end up with 1,000+ extra calories and tried to fill that with micro-nutrient dense foods? This is how we get the people who cannot eat 1,200 calories asking what they should do because you feel full.
Isn't that exactly what we've been saying all along? That most of the calories would come from highly nutritious foods and some of them can come from less nutritious foods?
See? There is barely any difference between your approach and mine. The only difference is in the mindset. While I do try to focus on nutritious foods (80% of that time as you would call it) I don't feel the other 20% is necessarily bad. .
I have gotten the idea from many of these posts that people are saying once you hit your macro/micro requirements you're good to fill any remaining calories with less nutrient dense foods i.e, crap exclusively. I say, and I think most nutrition authorities would tell you, the "extra" calories should come mostly (80/20, 75/25 whatever) from nutrient dense foods and the reminder from whatever. This does not have to be on a daily basis, but should be the case long term.
What you fill your macro/micro requirements with already comes from nutrient dense foods. If the rest was made up of 80% nutrient dense food, you'd be at 96% nutrient dense food.
And that would be a good thing.
Care to open your diary so we can confirm that you eat 96% nutrient dense foods, and also understand what counts as "nutrient dense"?
Go for it. It should be open. Please note in none of posts I said I never ate crap food. I'm just calling it as it is IMO.
Thursday
California pizza for 900 calories that you somehow only at .99 of it not the whole thing.
You at 2,767 calories for the day
The pizza was 32% of you whole days calories.
Friday
You ate pizza for 1,450 calories
Your total calories for the day 3,317
The pizza was 43% of you days intake
Saturday
Pulled pork sandwich for 540 calories. Lots of cholesterol in there right?
Fries for 540 calories.
Total calories for the day 2,717
Pork sandwich and fries was 39% of your days calories
Today
Pizza for 920 calories
So far you've eaten 1,662 calories
Pizza 55% of your daily calories so far
Pizza 3 out of 4 days and the other pork sandwich and fries and you want to sit here judging other people saying they should eat mostly "good food" and when we mention the things that are the same as you eat you criticize it. Wow, just wow.
You can look back a bit more if you want or not, not a usual sample. I never said in any post I was "perfect", just said to call crap food as it is.
If you are worried about my health I just had a physical, all blood work and blood pressure was in normal range with no medication as it has for my whole life.
Soooo, that "crap" food isn't actually doing you any harm then?
Boom.0 -
bumping to continue the discussion0
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I'm glad you agree.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions