A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Options
Replies
-
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 -
The proponents of IIFYM MUST concede that at least half of your daily intake should still come from "clean" foods.
The entire idea of some foods being "clean" is completely without merit. It's a meaningless term.0 -
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?
Well, gee---we've all been fretting about being overfat for too long. All we need to do is become drunks! :smokin:0 -
The proponents of IIFYM MUST concede that at least half of your daily intake should still come from "clean" foods.
The entire idea of some foods being "clean" is completely without merit. It's a meaningless term.
Yes, I understand that. Ergo the quotes. I dont want to type out "foods that are generally in their whole form, with accompanying fiber and is generally unprocessed or enriched".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.
I agree, and I think that one piece of context that is sometimes forgotten when dealing with a group of bodybuilders (I mention this because bodybuilders basically popularized IIFYM) is that adherence typically isn't as big of an issue (dietary compliance is probably far higher for bodybuilders vs obese people). The consequence of this is that when people discuss IIFYM, they tend to forget that people can have food control issues or at the very least, the "don't eat this if you can't control yourself" is sort of implied. At least, it certainly should be.
I still believe it's a sound practice, I would just add in caveats such as "if you can't limit your food intake when consuming processed food X, then you shouldn't eat processed food X".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.
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.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. Ice cream is just milk and sugar. Pop tarts are just ground up wheat, eggs, and berries then baked. I just had 2 of them. I'm a die hard IIFYMer. I've been doing it since before it had a fancy acronym. Back when Alan Aragon first published the findings about soccer players that use chocolate milk as a post workout vs Surge post workout drink and the rates of glycogen synthesis between the two groups. I get it. I'm not someone that needs a crash course in this.
But if you're to give advice on a forum where the majority of people are not fit like yourself, and have not done the research like you have, you also bear the cross of teaching it in a responsible manner. It takes first a healthy relationship with food to apply IIFYM, since the name of that game is intrinsically "moderation". Most grossly overweight people do not practice moderation or have a hard time applying it to the foods they love. Genuine triggers account for probably more than you think in terms of unwanted weight gain, and are most likely a big part of the problem.
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.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.
Yes, we agree on that. This thread is all about demonizing certain foods unnecessarily. That's what the OP is all about - that certain processed foods may have more calories, or something. Demonizing certain foods. I think that's incredibly counterproductive.0 -
Interesting information...looking forward to 10+ year study.
For people like myself I'm happy overestimating for the sake of not going over.
Fascinating how the body works...truly amazing.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.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.
extra lean ground beef
100 calorie sandwich thins
2% cheese
ketchup
mustard
pickles
its less than 400 calories.
come at me bro0 -
This is a really great thread...except for those who get so mad with others disagreeing with them. That ruins every thread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions