A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
Is Coach Reddy now female?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.
Wow, really??? Because I don't want to eat fast food, boxed, frozen, packaged foods it makes me have an eating disorder??
REALLY???? This is nonsense and totally irrational thoughts.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?
See response above. Cliffs: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65849
What has that got to do with anything? Restricting a food group for health reasons is NOT courting an ED.
There's no "health" reason to completely abstain from, say, pizza or Whoppers.
Please try telling this to someone with Celiac. And that's just one example.
Don't make blanket statements about health-related issues, there's always going to be someone to tell you you're wrong. And you are.1 -
Who wants diet food, give me the full monty. and I'm a happy guy."...As a disclaimer, hamburgers and cake and cookies are not bad. They are bad if they lead to only hamburgers and cakes and cookies. I think we can both agree on this point..."
This is, of course is a bit off the OP but it is important to point out that many seriously obese people (and there are a number of members here who are in the 350+ category) eat ONLY calorie-dense, low-nutrient, low fiber foods when they are in binge mode. For them, it is every bit as important for them to avoid those foods as it is for an alcoholic to avoid alcohol. Telling them that they don't have to give up those foods is a cruel joke.
extra lean ground beef
100 calorie sandwich thins
2% cheese
ketchup
mustard
pickles
its less than 400 calories.
come at me bro
This hamburger just makes me want a real hamburger...tomorrow, I feast on Five Guys.
I like lean ground beef better so I can eat more. its like getting a reduced calorie twinkie
Give me a grass fed burger with full fat raw milk cheddar, onions, mustard and pickles on a bed of lettuce and I am a happy girl.
Likewise!0 -
NOOOOOOOOO!!!! UNSUBSCRIBE!!! UNSUBSCRIBE!!!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?
See response above. Cliffs: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65849
What has that got to do with anything? Restricting a food group for health reasons is NOT courting an ED.
Again you miss the point entirely. Technically it is, unless you have a medical reason to, if you're demonizing the group to others. Spreading propaganda in the absence of evidence. You're simply catagorizing a group of food as evil and culpable of causing harm. Creating boogiemen.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?
See response above. Cliffs: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65849
What has that got to do with anything? Restricting a food group for health reasons is NOT courting an ED.
There's no "health" reason to completely abstain from, say, pizza or Whoppers.
Please try telling this to someone with Celiac. And that's just one example.
Don't make blanket statements about health-related issues, there's always going to be someone to tell you you're wrong. And you are.
That is a specific medical condition. You're making the blanket statement by demonizing processed foods.0 -
"...As a disclaimer, hamburgers and cake and cookies are not bad. They are bad if they lead to only hamburgers and cakes and cookies. I think we can both agree on this point..."
This is, of course is a bit off the OP but it is important to point out that many seriously obese people (and there are a number of members here who are in the 350+ category) eat ONLY calorie-dense, low-nutrient, low fiber foods when they are in binge mode. For them, it is every bit as important for them to avoid those foods as it is for an alcoholic to avoid alcohol. Telling them that they don't have to give up those foods is a cruel joke.
I am uncomfortable with all the 'they's and 'them's used here. Mfp is a site for adults, explicitly so, and as adults I feel we owe each other enough respect to not lie to 'them' 'for their own good' and pretend that certain foods are somehow evil, even in small quantities, without any research-based evidence. I know of many mfp members who have succeeded in losing from the 300lb+ range whilst incorporating all kinds of foods. I also know of mfp members who have tried losing from that range by eating only 'healthy' foods, and therefore, often, far too little for their weight, and soon fallen off the wagon, and often off mfp! To avoid the truth in case someone applies the information poorly is patronising and unethical.
My next bug bear, the demonisation of pizza. No fibre? Nonsense! No micro nutrients? Calcium from the cheese and vitamins from the vegetables don't disappear because you put bread underneath!
And finally, I'm fond of TEF theories because they might help explain why I can eat so much and lose (when not pregnant). I don't eat 'clean' but I do eat a high fibre diet and I sometimes wonder if this is part of why 2400kcal is a cut for me at 125lb.0 -
I have not read through the thread so I am sure I am repeating this, but the title of this thread is misleading. The article is about inaccuracies with food labeling and TEF.0
-
Does this mean that if I don't chew my food properly I'll not absorb all the calories??? After years of nagging about 'swallowing food whole' :P0
-
Sugar Oil and Salt, as delivered through processed foods, drives ***chronic addiction*** which has lead to explosion of obesity in the U.S and West in general.
Chronic addiction ("conditioned hyper eating") is addiction nonetheless.
1) "We are living in a food carnival"
2) "We are eating adult baby food"
3) "We are just self-stimulating and eating for reward"
4) "Depriving oneself of foods one 'wants' doesnt work and is only self torment."
5) "Food choices need to emotionally resonate or will be rejected. Knowledge not enough." -
6) Its not about "knowing" what is bad. A "critical perceptual shift" (at emotional level), a visceral reaction, is required to change ones habits. Around 30:00 in below link
*****Summary: Demonize sh!tty foods!!!!*****
.
From the dude who spearheaded product labeling at the FDA:
QUOTE
Conditioned hypereating is a biological challenge, not a character flaw, says Kessler, former FDA commissioner under presidents Bush and Clinton).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0rFEbGYnEE
Here Kessler (A Question of Intent) describes how, since the 1980s, the food industry, in collusion with the advertising industry, and lifestyle changes have short-circuited the body's self-regulating mechanisms, leaving many at the mercy of reward-driven eating. Through the evidence of research, personal stories (including candid accounts of his own struggles) and examinations of specific foods produced by giant food corporations and restaurant chains, Kessler explains how the desire to eat—as distinct from eating itself—is stimulated in the brain by an almost infinite variety of diabolical combinations of salt, fat and sugar. Although not everyone succumbs, more people of all ages are being set up for a lifetime of food obsession due to the ever-present availability of foods laden with salt, fat and sugar. A gentle though urgent plea for reform, Kessler's book provides a simple food rehab program to fight back against the industry's relentless quest for profits while an entire country of people gain weight and get sick. According to Kessler, persistence is all that is needed to make the perceptual shifts and find new sources of rewards to regain control.
Kessler surveys the world of modern industrial food production and distribution as reflected in both restaurants and grocery stores. To his chagrin, he finds that the system foists on the American public foods overloaded with fats, sugars, and salt. Each of these elements, consumed in excess, has been linked to serious long-term health problems. Kessler examines iconic foods such as Cinnabon and Big Macs, all of which have skilled marketing machines promoting consumption. Such nutritionally unbalanced foods propel people who already tend to eat more than mere physical need might otherwise warrant into uncontrolled behavior patterns of irrational eating. These persistent psychological and sensory stimuli lead to what Kessler terms “conditioned hypereating,” which he believes is a disease rather than a failure of willpower. There is hope, however. Kessler identifies the cues that lead to overeating and offers some simple, practical tools to help control one’s impulses.
QUOTE0 -
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?
You do not know what IIFYM means. The whole point of IIFYM is to get all of your macros and micros and THEN add other foods. It's not about eating only pizza, bacon, beer and nachos. I'm sad that people still think this is what IIFYM means.
How...do you get all your macros, and then add other foods? If you fulfill your macros, you will have just met the caloric restriction you have set while on IIFYM. Adding more food inherently causes you to go over every macro you just set. You cannot add more of something when you've just satisfied the values you've set for that exact thing.
Case in point. I have 375/175/60 as my macros. I have fulfilled them eating the things I usually eat, following IIFYM princples. Pop tarts, ice cream, Chinese takeout. With enough fiber, and micros, and EPA/omega-3s. By hitting these numbers. I have fulfilled my macros. How am I to add more food once I've already "gotten" all my macros? This this for real?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?
You do not know what IIFYM means. The whole point of IIFYM is to get all of your macros and micros and THEN add other foods. It's not about eating only pizza, bacon, beer and nachos. I'm sad that people still think this is what IIFYM means.
How...do you get all your macros, and then add other foods? If you fulfill your macros, you will have just met the caloric restriction you have set while on IIFYM. Adding more food inherently causes you to go over every macro you just set. You cannot add more of something when you've just satisfied the values you've set for that exact thing.
The point to IIFYM is to eat healthy foods while still allowing indulgences in moderation. Most people eating IIFYM are also eating above BMR which generally gives people the freedom to add in more foods so long as you DON'T exceed your macros. It can be challenging, but not unachievable.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?
You do not know what IIFYM means. The whole point of IIFYM is to get all of your macros and micros and THEN add other foods. It's not about eating only pizza, bacon, beer and nachos. I'm sad that people still think this is what IIFYM means.
How...do you get all your macros, and then add other foods? If you fulfill your macros, you will have just met the caloric restriction you have set while on IIFYM. Adding more food inherently causes you to go over every macro you just set. You cannot add more of something when you've just satisfied the values you've set for that exact thing.
The point to IIFYM is to eat healthy foods while still allowing indulgences in moderation. Most people eating IIFYM are also eating above BMR which generally gives people the freedom to add in more foods so long as you DON'T exceed your macros. It can be challenging, but not unachievable.
Right. Your indulgences are working within your macro allowments. Like...300 carb, 150 from pop tarts, 150 from whole oats. Done. You cannot get 300 from whole oats and then say..i'm going to have a pop tart because I just met my 300g carb limit. That immediately puts you at 350 carbs, defeating the purpose of "fitting" your macros.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?
You do not know what IIFYM means. The whole point of IIFYM is to get all of your macros and micros and THEN add other foods. It's not about eating only pizza, bacon, beer and nachos. I'm sad that people still think this is what IIFYM means.
How...do you get all your macros, and then add other foods? If you fulfill your macros, you will have just met the caloric restriction you have set while on IIFYM. Adding more food inherently causes you to go over every macro you just set. You cannot add more of something when you've just satisfied the values you've set for that exact thing.
Case in point. I have 375/175/60 as my macros. I have fulfilled them eating the things I usually eat, following IIFYM princples. Pop tarts, ice cream, Chinese takeout. With enough fiber, and micros, and EPA/omega-3s. By hitting these numbers. I have fulfilled my macros. How am I to add more food once I've already "gotten" all my macros? This this for real?
Protein, fat, fiber, micros are minimums. The rest of your calories can come from any macro.
On a day I play tennis and burn 1000 calories, I'm not maintaining the same macro ratio. A lot of those extra 1000 will come from carbs. Like 60% or more, oftentimes.0 -
Whilst TEF is generally not worth worrying about the point David Despain makes in the article I linked is an excellent one - you are more likely to get at the higher end of the maximum deliverable calories as shown on a food label etc the more processing the food has undergone.
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
Now someone pass me the steak tartare...
This is the food lifestyle philosophy that I follow. When I eat whole, minimally processed foods, I lose weight almost effortlessly. When I eat easy to digest, overly processed, pre-prepared foods, I gain weight very easily.
Also, if I eat overly processed foods, I do not feel or look my best.
I don't give a fig if there are studies out there to prove or disprove the effectiveness of primarily eating whole foods for fitness and health. I use my own body as my lab and I see the results, which is proof enough for me to convince me to keep doing what I am doing.
I do find it amusing whenever the discussions here go to processed foods, and most of us know that what is being referred to is junky foods like bologna, hot dogs, chips, pillowy white bready items, etc... folks have to get all nit-picky about "All food is processed in some way, unless you are eating it raw and not washing, or peeling, or chopping it before eating it." We all know full well what most folks are referring to when they say "processed foods."1 -
I manage my calorie intake and deficit closely. I want to get all the calories I'm eating. If I wanted a bigger deficit I'll eat fewer calories. I don't want some unknown mystery TEF factor applied.
Therefore it makes more sense to eat processed foods, right?
Of course that's silly. TEF is going to be insignificant. It's not worth worrying about, and it's certainly not a reason to avoid "processed" food.0 -
bumping to read when i get home0
-
You cannot isolate macros to the degree that is indicated in such studies, so how can you apply the science here?
Well, sure, but if 100 calories of almonds is really 75 calories to my body vs. 100 calories of cookies, that makes a difference in the choices I might make if counting calories on this site.
BUT what's this about alcohol being more thermogenic? Because if that means I can drink more whiskey and stay under goal, sign me up!
How many obese alcoholics do you see? Haha...yes it's up there. very high TEF, like 20-30% in some individuals. Also alcohol abuse leads to hunger suppression. How's that for dangling the carrot?
Having worked with plenty of alcohol addicts, it's a 50:50 split between those that are obese and underweight once they get into treatment.
The reason for this? Some can afford to eat as well as drink. Some take in huge amounts of carbs through drinking. Some don't eat because they have gastritis, ulcers, varices or simple nausea. Some can't afford food as well as drink and therefore have to go without food because not drinking will result in potentially fatal withdrawals. Some vomit repeatedly.
Thermogenesis doesn't mean much in terms of the terrible life of an alcoholic; it's about what they can do in order to continue to drink. And that's before any codependencies upon other substances come into it.0 -
Sugar Oil and Salt, as delivered through processed foods, drives ***chronic addiction*** which has lead to explosion of obesity in the U.S and West in general.
Chronic addiction ("conditioned hyper eating") is addiction nonetheless.
1) "We are living in a food carnival"
2) "We are eating adult baby food"
3) "We are just self-stimulating and eating for reward"
4) "Depriving oneself of foods one 'wants' doesnt work and is only self torment."
5) "Food choices need to emotionally resonate or will be rejected. Knowledge not enough." -
6) Its not about "knowing" what is bad. A "critical perceptual shift" (at emotional level), a visceral reaction, is required to change ones habits. Around 30:00 in below link
*****Summary: Demonize sh!tty foods!!!!*****
.
From the dude who spearheaded product labeling at the FDA:
QUOTE
Conditioned hypereating is a biological challenge, not a character flaw, says Kessler, former FDA commissioner under presidents Bush and Clinton).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0rFEbGYnEE
Here Kessler (A Question of Intent) describes how, since the 1980s, the food industry, in collusion with the advertising industry, and lifestyle changes have short-circuited the body's self-regulating mechanisms, leaving many at the mercy of reward-driven eating. Through the evidence of research, personal stories (including candid accounts of his own struggles) and examinations of specific foods produced by giant food corporations and restaurant chains, Kessler explains how the desire to eat—as distinct from eating itself—is stimulated in the brain by an almost infinite variety of diabolical combinations of salt, fat and sugar. Although not everyone succumbs, more people of all ages are being set up for a lifetime of food obsession due to the ever-present availability of foods laden with salt, fat and sugar. A gentle though urgent plea for reform, Kessler's book provides a simple food rehab program to fight back against the industry's relentless quest for profits while an entire country of people gain weight and get sick. According to Kessler, persistence is all that is needed to make the perceptual shifts and find new sources of rewards to regain control.
Kessler surveys the world of modern industrial food production and distribution as reflected in both restaurants and grocery stores. To his chagrin, he finds that the system foists on the American public foods overloaded with fats, sugars, and salt. Each of these elements, consumed in excess, has been linked to serious long-term health problems. Kessler examines iconic foods such as Cinnabon and Big Macs, all of which have skilled marketing machines promoting consumption. Such nutritionally unbalanced foods propel people who already tend to eat more than mere physical need might otherwise warrant into uncontrolled behavior patterns of irrational eating. These persistent psychological and sensory stimuli lead to what Kessler terms “conditioned hypereating,” which he believes is a disease rather than a failure of willpower. There is hope, however. Kessler identifies the cues that lead to overeating and offers some simple, practical tools to help control one’s impulses.
QUOTE
I'm out. Food Nazi's win.
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?
See response above. Cliffs: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65849
What has that got to do with anything? Restricting a food group for health reasons is NOT courting an ED.
There's no "health" reason to completely abstain from, say, pizza or Whoppers.
Please try telling this to someone with Celiac. And that's just one example.
Don't make blanket statements about health-related issues, there's always going to be someone to tell you you're wrong. And you are.
That is a specific medical condition. You're making the blanket statement by demonizing processed foods.
Never, at any point, have I demonized processed foods as a whole. I understand some people can eat processed foods and be healthy. I can't, so I exclude them. This isn't hard.
You can't say that people shouldn't EVER exclude something when there are plenty of legitimate health reasons for some people to do so with some food groups.0 -
Never, at any point, have I demonized processed foods as a whole. I understand some people can eat processed foods and be healthy. I can't, so I exclude them. This isn't hard.
You can't say that people shouldn't EVER exclude something when there are plenty of legitimate health reasons for some people to do so with some food groups.
I think that the concern is when the advice to exclude certain foods becomes so vehement in nature that people become fearful of a food that is most likely not an issue for them because the individual advising against it assumes that everyone has the same sensitivities as themselves.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?
See response above. Cliffs: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65849
What has that got to do with anything? Restricting a food group for health reasons is NOT courting an ED.
There's no "health" reason to completely abstain from, say, pizza or Whoppers.
Please try telling this to someone with Celiac. And that's just one example.
Don't make blanket statements about health-related issues, there's always going to be someone to tell you you're wrong. And you are.
That is a specific medical condition. You're making the blanket statement by demonizing processed foods.
Never, at any point, have I demonized processed foods as a whole. I understand some people can eat processed foods and be healthy. I can't, so I exclude them. This isn't hard.
You can't say that people shouldn't EVER exclude something when there are plenty of legitimate health reasons for some people to do so with some food groups.
This thread isn't about you and your disease.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?
You do not know what IIFYM means. The whole point of IIFYM is to get all of your macros and micros and THEN add other foods. It's not about eating only pizza, bacon, beer and nachos. I'm sad that people still think this is what IIFYM means.
How...do you get all your macros, and then add other foods? If you fulfill your macros, you will have just met the caloric restriction you have set while on IIFYM. Adding more food inherently causes you to go over every macro you just set. You cannot add more of something when you've just satisfied the values you've set for that exact thing.
Case in point. I have 375/175/60 as my macros. I have fulfilled them eating the things I usually eat, following IIFYM princples. Pop tarts, ice cream, Chinese takeout. With enough fiber, and micros, and EPA/omega-3s. By hitting these numbers. I have fulfilled my macros. How am I to add more food once I've already "gotten" all my macros? This this for real?
I'll admit I worded that poorly. I don't add foods after hitting my macros, you're right that I would then be over my calorie goal. I meant to limit that statement to my micros. As long as I've sufficiently met my micros (regardless of the type I derived it from), I can then consume whatever I like 'clean', 'dirty', 'good', 'bad', 'whole', 'processed' or any other silly label people wish to place on food, as long as it then fit my macros.
I hope that clears up my horribly stated post from before.0 -
Most of the discussions are tailored toward the general public. One can't specify all the exceptions that are possible.
Are we to advise that water isn't recommended because there are people out there allergic to water?0 -
Whilst TEF is generally not worth worrying about the point David Despain makes in the article I linked is an excellent one - you are more likely to get at the higher end of the maximum deliverable calories as shown on a food label etc the more processing the food has undergone.
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
Now someone pass me the steak tartare...
This is the food lifestyle philosophy that I follow. When I eat whole, minimally processed foods, I lose weight almost effortlessly. When I eat easy to digest, overly processed, pre-prepared foods, I gain weight very easily.
Also, if I eat overly processed foods, I do not feel or look my best.
I don't give a fig if there are studies out there to prove or disprove the effectiveness of primarily eating whole foods for fitness and health. I use my own body as my lab and I see the results, which is proof enough for me to convince me to keep doing what I am doing.
I do find it amusing whenever the discussions here go to processed foods, and most of us know that what is being referred to is junky foods like bologna, hot dogs, chips, pillowy white bready items, etc... folks have to get all nit-picky about "All food is processed in some way, unless you are eating it raw and not washing, or peeling, or chopping it before eating it." We all know full well what most folks are referring to when they say "processed foods."
^^^THIS^^^ It is important to point out to the Pop-Tart crowd that, while they, like Jonnythan might be burning LOTS of calories by playing tennis or weight-lifting or whatever, many others are incapable of burning calories at that rate because of disability. Those who have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" (in Kessler's terminology) and are seriously obese, often can not even walk around the block, let alone burn calories playing tennis. It is necessary for them to avoid the foods that they have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" in order to recover from what is a very serious illness. Once they recover from their addiction, and drastically reduce their weight, likely some of them will be able to indulge in eating some empty foods again, provided they maintain a strict hand on it and are dedicated exercisers. Otherwise, they will find themselves right back in the mess that they escaped. I know so many seriously obese people who have fallen off the wagon, not because they just could no longer control themselves and ate what they knew they shouldn't, but, instead, convinced themselves that a "few cookies won't wreck my diet--I'll just stay in my calorie allotment." Three packages of cookies later, just like the alcoholic surveying the empty bottles on "the day after", they beat themselves up and figure they might as well give up and give in to their addiction. If they had the willpower to resist eating excessive amounts of those foods, they would have done so a long time ago. Abstinence is the best course for most people who are seriously obese.1 -
In...
...to catch up on this thread...
...to finally learn if poptarts are truly good or evil.0 -
Whilst TEF is generally not worth worrying about the point David Despain makes in the article I linked is an excellent one - you are more likely to get at the higher end of the maximum deliverable calories as shown on a food label etc the more processing the food has undergone.
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
Now someone pass me the steak tartare...
This is the food lifestyle philosophy that I follow. When I eat whole, minimally processed foods, I lose weight almost effortlessly. When I eat easy to digest, overly processed, pre-prepared foods, I gain weight very easily.
Also, if I eat overly processed foods, I do not feel or look my best.
I don't give a fig if there are studies out there to prove or disprove the effectiveness of primarily eating whole foods for fitness and health. I use my own body as my lab and I see the results, which is proof enough for me to convince me to keep doing what I am doing.
I do find it amusing whenever the discussions here go to processed foods, and most of us know that what is being referred to is junky foods like bologna, hot dogs, chips, pillowy white bready items, etc... folks have to get all nit-picky about "All food is processed in some way, unless you are eating it raw and not washing, or peeling, or chopping it before eating it." We all know full well what most folks are referring to when they say "processed foods."
^^^THIS^^^ It is important to point out to the Pop-Tart crowd that, while they, like Jonnythan might be burning LOTS of calories by playing tennis or weight-lifting or whatever, many others are incapable of burning calories at that rate because of disability. Those who have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" (in Kessler's terminology) and are seriously obese, often can not even walk around the block, let alone burn calories playing tennis. It is necessary for them to avoid the foods that they have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" in order to recover from what is a very serious illness. Once they recover from their addiction, and drastically reduce their weight, likely some of them will be able to indulge in eating some empty foods again, provided they maintain a strict hand on it and are dedicated exercisers. Otherwise, they will find themselves right back in the mess that they escaped. I know so many seriously obese people who have fallen off the wagon, not because they just could no longer control themselves and ate what they knew they shouldn't, but, instead, convinced themselves that a "few cookies won't wreck my diet--I'll just stay in my calorie allotment." Three packages of cookies later, just like the alcoholic surveying the empty bottles on "the day after", they beat themselves up and figure they might as well give up and give in to their addiction. If they had the willpower to resist eating excessive amounts of those foods, they would have done so a long time ago. Abstinence is the best course for most people who are seriously obese.
I have a serious problem with you using such a broad brush to paint people as so pathetically lacking willpower that they need you to scare them away from "processed" food for their own good.
If people don't want to eat certain things, fine. But trying to convince everyone that certain things are automatically bad, when they are not, because they're all just so pathetic and helpless they can't help but binge on them, is stupid.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.
Couldn't eating those foods be what CAUSES the disease? I would rather prevent disease than wait until I have it and THEN do something.0 -
What works for some, won't work for others, and vice versa. After years of losing weight only to gain it back, I've finally found a way to keep it off. For me, that means avoiding heavily processed foods.
So... If someone's overweight and their weight has been yo-yo-ing for years when they try to "diet" via counting (calories, points, carbs...whatever they're counting) and they just end up gaining it all back and then some, THEN is it ok to suggest that reducing their intake of heavily processed foods might help? Or is that still demonizing, ED...etc.?0 -
Whilst TEF is generally not worth worrying about the point David Despain makes in the article I linked is an excellent one - you are more likely to get at the higher end of the maximum deliverable calories as shown on a food label etc the more processing the food has undergone.
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
Now someone pass me the steak tartare...
This is the food lifestyle philosophy that I follow. When I eat whole, minimally processed foods, I lose weight almost effortlessly. When I eat easy to digest, overly processed, pre-prepared foods, I gain weight very easily.
Also, if I eat overly processed foods, I do not feel or look my best.
I don't give a fig if there are studies out there to prove or disprove the effectiveness of primarily eating whole foods for fitness and health. I use my own body as my lab and I see the results, which is proof enough for me to convince me to keep doing what I am doing.
I do find it amusing whenever the discussions here go to processed foods, and most of us know that what is being referred to is junky foods like bologna, hot dogs, chips, pillowy white bready items, etc... folks have to get all nit-picky about "All food is processed in some way, unless you are eating it raw and not washing, or peeling, or chopping it before eating it." We all know full well what most folks are referring to when they say "processed foods."
^^^THIS^^^ It is important to point out to the Pop-Tart crowd that, while they, like Jonnythan might be burning LOTS of calories by playing tennis or weight-lifting or whatever, many others are incapable of burning calories at that rate because of disability. Those who have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" (in Kessler's terminology) and are seriously obese, often can not even walk around the block, let alone burn calories playing tennis. It is necessary for them to avoid the foods that they have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" in order to recover from what is a very serious illness. Once they recover from their addiction, and drastically reduce their weight, likely some of them will be able to indulge in eating some empty foods again, provided they maintain a strict hand on it and are dedicated exercisers. Otherwise, they will find themselves right back in the mess that they escaped. I know so many seriously obese people who have fallen off the wagon, not because they just could no longer control themselves and ate what they knew they shouldn't, but, instead, convinced themselves that a "few cookies won't wreck my diet--I'll just stay in my calorie allotment." Three packages of cookies later, just like the alcoholic surveying the empty bottles on "the day after", they beat themselves up and figure they might as well give up and give in to their addiction. If they had the willpower to resist eating excessive amounts of those foods, they would have done so a long time ago. Abstinence is the best course for most people who are seriously obese.
I have a serious problem with you using such a broad brush to paint people as so pathetically lacking willpower that they need you to scare them away from "processed" food for their own good.
If people don't want to eat certain things, fine. But trying to convince everyone that certain things are automatically bad, when they are not, because they're all just so pathetic and helpless they can't help but binge on them, is stupid.
Ahh--a new tactic born of desperation! What is pathetic is the stubborn defense of food that was deliberately engineered to trap people into overeating it. Would you insist that crack cocaine "is part of a normal healthy lifestyle" and that anyone who questions it is just trying to "demonize it" and that anyone who warns teens about its dangers is attempting to "scare them away from it for their own good"? Wouldn't that warning be natural from someone who was truly concerned about those young adults? Your line of reasoning would only make sense if you owned stock in or worked for a big food conglomerate. I cannot imagine another reason for it being so important to you that you keep insisting that everyone must eat junk food or risk out-of-control eating on one hand and then accuse others, who advise against eating junk food, of judging those same people to be "pathetically lacking in willpower". You are the one who implied that they must inevitably succumb to the lures of junk food. I find that laughably inconsistent.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