A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
Because demonizing foods they love, but are "unhealthy" or "processed" like ice cream, Pop-tarts, Taco Bell, etc, makes them feel like a failure when they finally give in and eat those foods. That sends them into a downward spiral that results in yo-yo dieting.
It's infinitely more important to teach them to focus on appropriate nutrients, like protein, fat, and fiber, so that they can fit the foods they crave and love into their diets in sustainable healthy ways.
Pegging certain foods as "worse" or "unhealthy" or some foods as "clean" and "good" is the absolute wrong approach. It's not individual foods that are clean or good or healthy, it's the overall diet. A good, healthy diet can include ice cream and McDonald's.
Depends on the person. Every approach requires willpower and dedication. Avoidance may be easier than moderation. Especially with high salt/fat/sugar foods.
I think having such an irrational fear of a particular food that you can't eat it without feeling like a failure is an eating disorder. I don't encourage that for anyone.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
I can agree with that.0 -
you're an irrational fearBecause demonizing foods they love, but are "unhealthy" or "processed" like ice cream, Pop-tarts, Taco Bell, etc, makes them feel like a failure when they finally give in and eat those foods. That sends them into a downward spiral that results in yo-yo dieting.
It's infinitely more important to teach them to focus on appropriate nutrients, like protein, fat, and fiber, so that they can fit the foods they crave and love into their diets in sustainable healthy ways.
Pegging certain foods as "worse" or "unhealthy" or some foods as "clean" and "good" is the absolute wrong approach. It's not individual foods that are clean or good or healthy, it's the overall diet. A good, healthy diet can include ice cream and McDonald's.
Depends on the person. Every approach requires willpower and dedication. Avoidance may be easier than moderation. Especially with high salt/fat/sugar foods.
I think having such an irrational fear of a particular food that you can't eat it without feeling like a failure is an eating disorder. I don't encourage that for anyone.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You're essentially promoting an ED.0 -
I am a big believer in "it's not the amount of calories we consume, it's the quality of those calories". I avoid all sugars, packaged foods, frozen foods, candy, breads, pasta, and of course fast food. Still need my wine or vodka and water on a Saturday though. I don't snack on chips or crackers. Ever since I gave up all that crap, I dropped 5 pounds almost immediately and have consistantly dropped 1 pound a week. And I was not a large woman to begin with. I have a flatter stomach than I have had in a long time. Protein, whole foods, and exercising is definitely where it's at for me.0
-
You're essentially promoting an ED.
Avoiding foods that trigger binging is not an ED.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You're essentially promoting an ED.
How? I avoid trans fats, should I stop doing that? What about grains and starches? If I eat those, my blood glucose shoots up and that's not healthy. Should I eat those foods as to not appear to have an eating disorder?0 -
There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Some people can't handle the range of freedom IIFYM offers, others hate the restriction of eating low carb, low sugar, low anything. IIFYM has its downfalls. people ignore micronutrients, fiber requirements all the time. So here's the thing. You cannot follow IIFYM and get enough fiber, without eating some moderately healthy things. Pizza, wings, burgers, and hot dogs have a combined fiber content of nil. They offer the micronutrient density of a paper plate. So the real question is...for you IIFYM guys, how are you achieving overall health not just in the weight loss department, but omega-3s, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc..? There's no case in which the sensible IIFYM macro follower is not eating moderately healthy foods anyways. Just like there's no way a sensible "clean eater" isn't enjoying a burger once in a while.
Why are you polarized?0 -
I was at this talk at AAAS. It was a real eye opener.
The more processed your food is (cooked, ground, moistened, warmed, etc...) the less calories it takes for your body to digest it. The food still has the same initial calories that we are all accustomed to, but the net calories can differ quite a bit based on many factors. Computing the net calories can get really complex, but if you just assume you get some bonus calorie reduction for less processed foods, your food numbers don't change but you burn more calories in the process of digesting it.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You're essentially promoting an ED.
How? I avoid trans fats, should I stop doing that? What about grains and starches? If I eat those, my blood glucose shoots up and that's not healthy. Should I eat those foods as to not appear to have an eating disorder?
Are you diabetic? If you have a valid medical reason for not eating certain foods that's one thing. We're talking about people without diseases.0 -
Are you diabetic? If you have a valid medical reason for not eating certain foods that's one thing. We're talking about people without diseases.
If the end result of incorporating XX into the diet is missing on objectives, avoiding XX is functionally superior.
For someone who has a pathological need to eat Taco Bell, but also has the willpower to track and fit Taco Bell options into a decent macro/calorie setup, eating at Taco Bell is fine.
For someone who has the willpower to avoid eating at Taco Bell, but has a pathological need to binge while eating Taco Bell, not eating at Taco Bell is a better option.
Can replace Taco Bell with anything. Some people simply find it easier to avoid some foods than to eat them in moderation.1 -
Science is fun. I lost 25 pounds so far cooking my potatoes and counting calories, so I'm going to stick with that.0
-
2,000 calories of Twinkies delivers more calories to your body than 2,000 calories of vegetables and meat.
There is the issue. That people actually eat 2000 calories worth of Twinkies. While true in most case, all these smaller issue are so inconsequential for the average person it isn't even funny.
People need to eat less and exercise/move more.
Period.0 -
There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Some people can't handle the range of freedom IIFYM offers, others hate the restriction of eating low carb, low sugar, low anything. IIFYM has its downfalls. people ignore micronutrients, fiber requirements all the time. So here's the thing. You cannot follow IIFYM and get enough fiber, without eating some moderately healthy things. Pizza, wings, burgers, and hot dogs have a combined fiber content of nil. They offer the micronutrient density of a paper plate. So the real question is...for you IIFYM guys, how are you achieving overall health not just in the weight loss department, but omega-3s, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc..? There's no case in which the sensible IIFYM macro follower is not eating moderately healthy foods anyways. Just like there's no way a sensible "clean eater" isn't enjoying a burger once in a while.
Why are you polarized?
The point isn't that anyone needs to eat hot dogs and hamburgers.
The point is to quit perpetuating this falsehood that hot dogs and hamburgers are automatically bad, and eating them is somehow automatically bad for you. People need to understand that they CAN eat these things if they fit them into nutritional goals.
Making people feel guilty for eating a hot dog is not helping them be healthy - it's encouraging eating disorders. People should not experience anxiety when presented with a slice of pizza at a party.0 -
This is a ridiculous argument. Alcohol in the body prevents fat loss.
And I was an obese alcoholic.
What's funny is that for me, a night of heavy drinking usually results in my weight going down by at least 2 pounds the next day. Yes, the weight stays off. No, I don't do this on a regular basis.0 -
I lost weight eating mostly healthy with a little junk thrown in. I stayed within my calorie goals and made sure I still gave my body the nutrients it needed. There is really no need to over think it. That's my two cents and now it's time for some Taco Bell.0
-
You're essentially promoting an ED.
Avoiding foods that trigger binging is not an ED.
We're talking about demonizing, not avoiding foods. There's a huge difference.
Demonize:
- Portray as wicked and threatening.
- to mark out or describe as evil or culpable
Last I checked a food or a food group couldn't be culpable or have evil intent. You're arguement is to turn food into a villian which is just shifting the blame to someone other than oneself. The food made them do it.
Avoidance is another issue.0 -
Bump0
-
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You're essentially promoting an ED.
How? I avoid trans fats, should I stop doing that? What about grains and starches? If I eat those, my blood glucose shoots up and that's not healthy. Should I eat those foods as to not appear to have an eating disorder?
See response above. Avoidance and demonizing are completely different.0 -
There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Some people can't handle the range of freedom IIFYM offers, others hate the restriction of eating low carb, low sugar, low anything. IIFYM has its downfalls. people ignore micronutrients, fiber requirements all the time. So here's the thing. You cannot follow IIFYM and get enough fiber, without eating some moderately healthy things. Pizza, wings, burgers, and hot dogs have a combined fiber content of nil. They offer the micronutrient density of a paper plate. So the real question is...for you IIFYM guys, how are you achieving overall health not just in the weight loss department, but omega-3s, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc..? There's no case in which the sensible IIFYM macro follower is not eating moderately healthy foods anyways. Just like there's no way a sensible "clean eater" isn't enjoying a burger once in a while.
Why are you polarized?
The point isn't that anyone needs to eat hot dogs and hamburgers.
The point is to quit perpetuating this falsehood that hot dogs and hamburgers are automatically bad, and eating them is somehow automatically bad for you. People need to understand that they CAN eat these things if they fit them into nutritional goals.
Making people feel guilty for eating a hot dog is not helping them be healthy - it's encouraging eating disorders. People should not experience anxiety when presented with a slice of pizza at a party.
I completely agree that making someone feel bad about their food choice, as long as their macro and micro nutrients are met is probably not wise. But we're talking about someone making that decision for themselves..because they understand their own psychology and that it might lead to something more than just a burger or hot dog here or there.
The proponents of IIFYM MUST concede that at least half of your daily intake should still come from "clean" foods. Like for instance, I eat whatever I want for lunch. Usually chipotle, or panda express, or chinese buffet. I'm solid, as long as I keep it under 40g fat, and keep it over 100g carbs and 80g protein. Because I have this meal, following the IIFYM principles, all my other meals have to be rather clean. Just by default they must be. Otherwise I will go over my fat intake, or be under my fiber intake. So I have to eat only 20g fats over the other 3 meals or so, and get about 40g fiber. Automatically, that's low fat, high fiber whole fruit, non fat yogurt, and stuff like Ezekiel Bread. I will not within my macros if I have another burger. I will bust through my fat allowance and still be under my fiber requirement. Same goes for if my carbs are too high in that IIFYM meal. If i get 200g in one sitting, and still have to somehow get 40g of fiber in my remaining 175g carbs...which can only mean one thing. I'm eating lentils for dinner. I hate lentils.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You're essentially promoting an ED.
Only an idiot would come up with that assumption....
That was an articulate response. Bravo.0 -
You're essentially promoting an ED.
Avoiding foods that trigger binging is not an ED.
We're talking about demonizing, not avoiding foods. There's a huge difference.
Demonize:
- Portray as wicked and threatening.
- to mark out or describe as evil or culpable
Last I checked a food or a food group couldn't be culpable or have evil intent. You're arguement is to turn food into a villian which is just shifting the blame to someone other than oneself. The food made them do it.
Avoidance is another issue.
My argument is avoiding foods that trigger binging works better for some people than trying to incorporate those foods into a sensible eating plan. For some people, avoiding ice cream is a better idea than trying to eat just a little bit.
People who can't avoid foods lack willpower. People who can't avoid overeating foods also lack willpower. One of these paths may be easier to meet objectives with. Depends on the person. If you can eat foods and meet objectives, good for you. If you can avoid foods and meet objectives, good for you.
The problem I have is with people who willfully ignore or advocate against avoidance as a reasonable option.
This shouldn't even be controversial, and you're trying to categorize it as an ED.0 -
2,000 calories of Twinkies delivers more calories to your body than 2,000 calories of vegetables and meat.
There is the issue. That people actually eat 2000 calories worth of Twinkies. While true in most case, all these smaller issue are so inconsequential for the average person it isn't even funny.
People need to eat less and exercise/move more.
Period.
2,000 calories of twinkies is around 13 twinkies. VS 2000 calories of whole foods. Both are the same calories but I'd say the volume of those two stacks of food would much different.
I don't think I could eat just 13 twinkies and not be hungry and eat more. While I could (and do) eat 2,000 calories of other foods and be just fine.0 -
There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Some people can't handle the range of freedom IIFYM offers, others hate the restriction of eating low carb, low sugar, low anything. IIFYM has its downfalls. people ignore micronutrients, fiber requirements all the time. So here's the thing. You cannot follow IIFYM and get enough fiber, without eating some moderately healthy things. Pizza, wings, burgers, and hot dogs have a combined fiber content of nil. They offer the micronutrient density of a paper plate. So the real question is...for you IIFYM guys, how are you achieving overall health not just in the weight loss department, but omega-3s, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc..? There's no case in which the sensible IIFYM macro follower is not eating moderately healthy foods anyways. Just like there's no way a sensible "clean eater" isn't enjoying a burger once in a while.
Why are you polarized?
The point isn't that anyone needs to eat hot dogs and hamburgers.
The point is to quit perpetuating this falsehood that hot dogs and hamburgers are automatically bad, and eating them is somehow automatically bad for you. People need to understand that they CAN eat these things if they fit them into nutritional goals.
Making people feel guilty for eating a hot dog is not helping them be healthy - it's encouraging eating disorders. People should not experience anxiety when presented with a slice of pizza at a party.
I completely agree that making someone feel bad about their food choice, as long as their macro and micro nutrients are met is probably not wise. But we're talking about someone making that decision for themselves..because they understand their own psychology and that it might lead to something more than just a burger or hot dog here or there.
The proponents of IIFYM MUST concede that at least half of your daily intake should still come from "clean" foods. Like for instance, I eat whatever I want for lunch. Usually chipotle, or panda express, or chinese buffet. I'm solid, as long as I keep it under 40g fat, and keep it over 100g carbs and 80g protein. Because I have this meal, following the IIFYM principles, all my other meals have to be rather clean. Just by default they must be. Otherwise I will go over my fat intake, or be under my fiber intake. So I have to eat only 20g fats over the other 3 meals or so, and get about 40g fiber. Automatically, that's low fat, high fiber whole fruit, non fat yogurt, and stuff like Ezekiel Bread. I will not within my macros if I have another burger. I will bust through my fat allowance and still be under my fiber requirement. Same goes for if my carbs are too high in that IIFYM meal. If i get 200g in one sitting, and still have to somehow get 40g of fiber in my remaining 175g carbs...which can only mean one thing. I'm eating lentils for dinner. I hate lentils.
Common recommendations for IIFYM include monitoring fiber, micronutrients, and consuming a diet that is mostly composed of whole foods. ~20% discretionary intake give or take.
The issue isn't IIFYM, the issue is people bastardizing IIFYM into an "eat anything you want in any quantity you want" mentality. EDIT: <--- previous comment not aimed at you, it's a general thing that happens to IIFYM to a rather absurd extent.0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.
Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You're essentially promoting an ED.
How? I avoid trans fats, should I stop doing that? What about grains and starches? If I eat those, my blood glucose shoots up and that's not healthy. Should I eat those foods as to not appear to have an eating disorder?
See response above. Avoidance and demonizing are completely different.
I demonize the foods that make me unhealthy. I avoid the foods I demonize. When I avoid those foods, it helps me out tremendously. Do I have an eating disorder?
In response to this:Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.
You saidYou're essentially promoting an ED.
What?0 -
There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Some people can't handle the range of freedom IIFYM offers, others hate the restriction of eating low carb, low sugar, low anything. IIFYM has its downfalls. people ignore micronutrients, fiber requirements all the time. So here's the thing. You cannot follow IIFYM and get enough fiber, without eating some moderately healthy things. Pizza, wings, burgers, and hot dogs have a combined fiber content of nil. They offer the micronutrient density of a paper plate. So the real question is...for you IIFYM guys, how are you achieving overall health not just in the weight loss department, but omega-3s, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc..? There's no case in which the sensible IIFYM macro follower is not eating moderately healthy foods anyways. Just like there's no way a sensible "clean eater" isn't enjoying a burger once in a while.
Why are you polarized?
The point isn't that anyone needs to eat hot dogs and hamburgers.
The point is to quit perpetuating this falsehood that hot dogs and hamburgers are automatically bad, and eating them is somehow automatically bad for you. People need to understand that they CAN eat these things if they fit them into nutritional goals.
Making people feel guilty for eating a hot dog is not helping them be healthy - it's encouraging eating disorders. People should not experience anxiety when presented with a slice of pizza at a party.
I completely agree that making someone feel bad about their food choice, as long as their macro and micro nutrients are met is probably not wise. But we're talking about someone making that decision for themselves..because they understand their own psychology and that it might lead to something more than just a burger or hot dog here or there.
The proponents of IIFYM MUST concede that at least half of your daily intake should still come from "clean" foods. Like for instance, I eat whatever I want for lunch. Usually chipotle, or panda express, or chinese buffet. I'm solid, as long as I keep it under 40g fat, and keep it over 100g carbs and 80g protein. Because I have this meal, following the IIFYM principles, all my other meals have to be rather clean. Just by default they must be. Otherwise I will go over my fat intake, or be under my fiber intake. So I have to eat only 20g fats over the other 3 meals or so, and get about 40g fiber. Automatically, that's low fat, high fiber whole fruit, non fat yogurt, and stuff like Ezekiel Bread. I will not within my macros if I have another burger. I will bust through my fat allowance and still be under my fiber requirement. Same goes for if my carbs are too high in that IIFYM meal. If i get 200g in one sitting, and still have to somehow get 40g of fiber in my remaining 175g carbs...which can only mean one thing. I'm eating lentils for dinner. I hate lentils.
Common recommendations for IIFYM include monitoring fiber, micronutrients, and consuming a diet that is mostly composed of whole foods. ~20% discretionary intake give or take.
The issue isn't IIFYM, the issue is people bastardizing IIFYM into an "eat anything you want in any quantity you want" mentality. EDIT: <--- previous comment not aimed at you, it's a general thing that happens to IIFYM to a rather absurd extent.
Right. So let's not get too carried about with this "as long as it fits" mentality, especially when you're dealing with people that are grossly overweight due to impulse control issues. That's a slippery slope for them to traverse, and it'll be hard to get their arms around it. Yes, we all realize IIFYM is a tool that can help us alleviate dieting stress, have a slice once in a while. Don't have it if it leads to you eating the entire pizza.
Totally agree with the bastardization part. Whenever there's a fad diet (and IIFYM is intended to be anti-fad), people try to make it fit their personal world views. Operate within the realm of logic. The stipulations of the diet imply a certain level of whole and clean food consumption that's built in.0 -
"...For example, the almond study, which also accounted for calories lost in feces, suggested that some of the fat in whole almonds is locked away in a structure our bodies can't digest. While the Atwater system says a serving of whole almonds has about 170 calories, the almond study found it actually has about 130...."
I suspect the same is also true for the fructose in fruit--much of it is likely locked away in fruit pulp and is unavailable for absorption. Unlike soda pop, where ALL the sugars (and there are horrendous amounts) are bio-available or fruit juice (but you at least get vitamins and phyto-nutrients from fruit juice.)0 -
"...For example, the almond study, which also accounted for calories lost in feces, suggested that some of the fat in whole almonds is locked away in a structure our bodies can't digest. While the Atwater system says a serving of whole almonds has about 170 calories, the almond study found it actually has about 130...."
I suspect the same is also true for the fructose in fruit--much of it is likely locked away in fruit pulp and is unavailable for absorption. Unlike soda pop, where ALL the sugars (and there are horrendous amounts) are bio-available or fruit juice (but you at least get vitamins and phyto-nutrients from fruit juice.)
what are you talking about? are you like aroundthemulberry's bush's brother?
all you do is talk about fructose. fructose isn't the problem out there
oh so with that stuff you don't absorb all the macronutrients you need?
better eat processed0 -
You're essentially promoting an ED.
Avoiding foods that trigger binging is not an ED.
We're talking about demonizing, not avoiding foods. There's a huge difference.
Demonize:
- Portray as wicked and threatening.
- to mark out or describe as evil or culpable
Last I checked a food or a food group couldn't be culpable or have evil intent. You're arguement is to turn food into a villian which is just shifting the blame to someone other than oneself. The food made them do it.
Avoidance is another issue.
My argument is avoiding foods that trigger binging works better for some people than trying to incorporate those foods into a sensible eating plan. For some people, avoiding ice cream is a better idea than trying to eat just a little bit.
People who can't avoid foods lack willpower. People who can't avoid overeating foods also lack willpower. One of these paths may be easier to meet objectives with. Depends on the person. If you can eat foods and meet objectives, good for you. If you can avoid foods and meet objectives, good for you.
The problem I have is with people who willfully ignore or advocate against avoidance as a reasonable option.
This shouldn't even be controversial, and you're trying to categorize it as an ED.
If someone has an honest to goodness "trigger food" that causes binging, then that's a serious mental issue that needs to be addressed.
But, again, that's not what anyone is talking about. We are talking about hammering "hamburgers are unhealthy and you should be eating lentil stew instead" into people's heads.
I'm not talking about teaching people to deal with genuine triggers, I'm talking about trying to convince regular people that pizza and ice cream are unhealthy by default and have no place in a healthy lifestyle.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions