A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.0 -
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Your entire premise is that it's OK to mislead people because it's for their own good.
That's not for you to decide. It's for them to decide.0 -
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Sante, people have to be ready and willing to make that change. A lot of folks on here just want to lose weight, and a calorie deficit (whether from a garbage can or $200 meals) will accomplish that.
Which is why I stick to binge triggers with this topic. If you tend to scarf down a gallon of ice cream when you have a spoonful, don't buy gallons of ice cream. If you go to Taco Bell and can't help yourself from ordering 10 items, don't go to Taco Bell.
If you really like Taco Bell, don't care that they have 20+ ingredients in a taco shell, and can moderate your eating to meet goals, by all means eat Taco Bell.0 -
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
IF we weren't designed to pursue pleasure our brains wouldn't have pleasure centers that responded to stimuli. Not everyone, almost no one, wants to persue the puritanical & miserable life style you seem to promote at all costs and every chance you get.
One would have to believe in souls to worry about them, you assume too much. Religious undertones really have no place in a health and fitness forum. With, perhaps, the exception of certain religious practices that may impact ones eating or fitness such as how to handle, say, Ramadan fasting etc.
EDIT: Typo.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 kids about its dangers is attempting to "scare them away from it for their own good". 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.
Yea you sound like you would be aroundthemulberrybush's brother.
lol @ pinning the blame on processed foods. Yes processed foods have crap satiety. but it wasnt meant to overeat or trap them. nothing is addicting and the evidence against it is crap.
We are not in a world of blind consumption anymore. We know what calories are and we can measure them. If you cant control your caloric intake and "get trapped" then it becomes survival of the fittest and you already lost
Even those CREATING the junk foods have admitted to formulating them in a way that makes them hard to stop eating (or thinking about) by intentionally using what they know about our brains' reward centers.
This is what humans have been doing for millennia to food. We add foods to other foods, spices to other foods, heat and flame to foods to make tem taste better. Just because a company does it in the modern era does not suddenly make that age old process evil, malicious or dastardly. Are master chefs evil because they've learned and perfected how to create food masterpieces in the exact same way? The level of tin foil hattery in this thread is getting ridiculous.0 -
. Some of these hormones can be triggered by stressful situations like if someone gets the idea that the only way they can lose is to avoid sugar (for example). They love sugar, sugar is all around them, and then they give into it. They have created undue stress for themselves by fighting the urge and added to it another layer of guilt-related stress after they lost the battle..."
Thats their problem for being weak0 -
The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.
Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.
It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?
I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.
I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.
Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?
To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?
This is the most ridiculous analogy ever. I can't stop laughing. Seriously, how many calories burned can I log from five straight minutes of hard core, belly aching laughter?0 -
I have been known to eat a slice of raw potatoe with salt, but I wouldn't eat a whole one.....0
-
The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.
Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.
It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?
I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.
I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.
Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?
If that happened to me, I'd be slamming the door and wondering how much she was planning to charge.0 -
A calorie may or may not be a calorie, but a person avoiding (even unnecessarily) fast food or very processed foods isn't an eating disorder, at least not as defined by the DSM. Something people often forget when discussing diagnoses is that there must be clinical (significant) impairment in some kind of functioning (essentially causing real harm in a person's life.) If a person unnecessarily avoids fast food, it's an inconvenience he or she is bringing on himself. If a person avoids these foods and suffers emotional anguish or is terrified of social gatherings because of it, then we are talking disordered, possibly something like EDNOS. (I say possibly because it could be more caused by some other disorder.)0
-
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Your entire premise is that it's OK to mislead people because it's for their own good.
That's not for you to decide. It's for them to decide.
But you see, I simply do NOT believe it is misleading anyone. If anyone is doing the misleading it would be those who tell food addicts that they can "eat all the foods [they] love and then leave them to flounder with binges. You are right, it is for them to decide---NOT you either.0 -
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Sante, people have to be ready and willing to make that change. A lot of folks on here just want to lose weight, and a calorie deficit (whether from a garbage can or $200 meals) will accomplish that.
Which is why I stick to binge triggers with this topic. If you tend to scarf down a gallon of ice cream when you have a spoonful, don't buy gallons of ice cream. If you go to Taco Bell and can't help yourself from ordering 10 items, don't go to Taco Bell.
If you really like Taco Bell, don't care that they have 20+ ingredients in a taco shell, and can moderate your eating to meet goals, by all means eat Taco Bell.
Yes. I would very much agree with your points made here.0 -
But you see, I simply do NOT believe it is misleading anyone. If anyone is doing the misleading it would be those who tell food addicts that they can "eat all the foods [they] love and then leave them to flounder with binges. You are right, it is for them to decide---NOT you either.
It is indeed misleading when you tell people things that are untrue in order to get them behave the way you think they should behave.
You are straight-up saying it's OK to manipulate people because you think you know better than they are. I, however, am liberating them to take control of their lives.0 -
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Actually, over-training is also a stressor that can trigger the release of cortisol. It doesn't matter if its physical or mental stress. Cortisol lowers the body's demand for energy as a trigger to prevent exhausting stores of body fat, an organ deemed wholly necessary by the body. Sure, if you are obese your body will resort to stored body fat initially, but the more stressors present in your lifestyle, and the more body fat is depleted, the more your body will work to protect itself.0 -
. Some of these hormones can be triggered by stressful situations like if someone gets the idea that the only way they can lose is to avoid sugar (for example). They love sugar, sugar is all around them, and then they give into it. They have created undue stress for themselves by fighting the urge and added to it another layer of guilt-related stress after they lost the battle..."
Thats their problem for being weak
I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if deprivation causes you mental stress, then perhaps moderation is more appropriate.0 -
"...IF we weren't designed to pursue pleasure our brains wouldn't have pleasure centers that responded to stimuli..."
I did NOT say that we were not intended to enjoy ourselves I said that we were not intended to "seek pleasure at the expense of body and soul." If you are going to argue with me, at least try to accurately represent what I said. Pretty please with Pop-Tarts on it? :flowerforyou:
"...Not everyone, almost no one, wants to persue the puritanical & miserable life style you seem to promote at all costs and every chance you get..."
Now that is just plain silly. You don't even understand puritanism if you could say that. Miserable---me? My friends would tell you that I am one of the happiest people they know. If all I had in life was indulging a taste for junk food, THAT would indeed be a miserable existence. "Man does not live by bread alone..."
"...One would have to believe in souls to worry about them, you assume too much. Religious undertones really have no place in a health and fitness forum..."
So you say but I would say that there are two parts to compulsive overeating---physical (which can be helped a great deal by avoiding trigger foods) and spiritual. The organization, Overeaters Anonymous has done a great service to many overeaters--and their approach is ALL spiritual (but you don't even have to believe in God to be part of the spiritual discussion).0 -
"...Not everyone, almost no one, wants to persue the puritanical & miserable life style you seem to promote at all costs and every chance you get..."
...0 -
"...My body doesn't care if I have a serving of a blonde brownie...or a handful of red hots...a mocha caramel sundae...as long as I keep my total calories at an appropriate level..."
Well, you might not think so, but your body actually does "care" deeply about getting appropriate nourishment.0 -
"...My body doesn't care if I have a serving of a blonde brownie...or a handful of red hots...a mocha caramel sundae...as long as I keep my total calories at an appropriate level..."
Well, you might not think so, but your body actually does "care" deeply about getting appropriate nourishment.
There you go again, implying that anything with added sugar is not "appropriate nourishment."0 -
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Ah yes, the "I'm smarter so I will decide for you" approach. Often the choice of the arrogant and ignorant.
Frankly it's made all the more ridiculous by the appeal to the soul, as this is a health and fitness website and the mods have made it clear that religious discussions belong in private groups. If you don't like sugar then don't eat it but don't go around poisoning other people's minds with garbage and lies.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Ah yes, the "I'm smarter so I will decide for you" approach. Often the choice of the arrogant and ignorant.
Frankly it's made all the more ridiculous by the appeal to the soul, as this is a health and fitness website and the mods have made it clear that religious discussions belong in private groups. If you don't like sugar then don't eat it but don't go around poisoning other people's minds with garbage and lies.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I did one more smily laugh, so I win the argument. That's how that works, right?0 -
"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."
I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.
You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.
You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.
Well, perhaps that "stress" would be productive if it spurred them on to retrain their eating habits. The human race got along quite well without Pop-Tarts for the vast majority of its existence. We were not designed to pursue pleasure at the expense of our bodies and souls. This nation has become preoccupied with rushing into its hedonistic pursuits. It speaks of a vast emptiness of soul. Sad.
Ah yes, the "I'm smarter so I will decide for you" approach. Often the choice of the arrogant and ignorant.
Frankly it's made all the more ridiculous by the appeal to the soul, as this is a health and fitness website and the mods have made it clear that religious discussions belong in private groups. If you don't like sugar then don't eat it but don't go around poisoning other people's minds with garbage and lies.
I do not lie.
0 -
I do not lie.
Just because you believe the lie doesn't mean it's not a lie when you tell it.
You have this irrational crusade against sugar. It's silly and nonsensical. I think you've just settled on blaming sugar for your obesity and nothing anyone could say or do could possibly change your mind.0 -
The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.
Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.
It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?
I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.
I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.
Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?
To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?
This is the most ridiculous analogy ever. I can't stop laughing. Seriously, how many calories burned can I log from five straight minutes of hard core, belly aching laughter?
Hmm. Did you by any chance fail the Miller Analogies?0 -
The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.
Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.
It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?
I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.
I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.
Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?
If that happened to me, I'd be slamming the door and wondering how much she was planning to charge.
LOL :laugh: Touche!0 -
Ah yes, the "I'm smarter so I will decide for you" approach. Often the choice of the arrogant and ignorant.
Frankly it's made all the more ridiculous by the appeal to the soul, as this is a health and fitness website and the mods have made it clear that religious discussions belong in private groups. If you don't like sugar then don't eat it but don't go around poisoning other people's minds with garbage and lies.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I did one more smily laugh, so I win the argument. That's how that works, right?
Well, since my response was not directed at you in that instance, I fail to see that you are even part of that discussion.0 -
I do not lie.
Just because you believe the lie doesn't mean it's not a lie when you tell it.
You have this irrational crusade against sugar. It's silly and nonsensical. I think you've just settled on blaming sugar for your obesity and nothing anyone could say or do could possibly change your mind.
Good news--I am no longer obese (and very soon, I plan to be of a normal healthy weight). I was a child when I became obese and unhealthy from eating too much sugar. I have absolutely NO doubt about that. And what's more, the medical establishment is coming around to being on an anti-sugar crusade itself. You are fighting a losing battle. Barely anyone believes that consuming a lot of sugar is harmless anymore. Eating sugar several times a day every day is hardly "moderation". It does terrible things to the body---the research is pouring in on it.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 kids about its dangers is attempting to "scare them away from it for their own good". 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.
Yea you sound like you would be aroundthemulberrybush's brother.
lol @ pinning the blame on processed foods. Yes processed foods have crap satiety. but it wasnt meant to overeat or trap them. nothing is addicting and the evidence against it is crap.
We are not in a world of blind consumption anymore. We know what calories are and we can measure them. If you cant control your caloric intake and "get trapped" then it becomes survival of the fittest and you already lost
Even those CREATING the junk foods have admitted to formulating them in a way that makes them hard to stop eating (or thinking about) by intentionally using what they know about our brains' reward centers.
This is nothing more than making it taste good. I haven't had my mother's lasagna in decades but I still crave it. It didn't take a lab or any studies for her to activate my reward centers. Just good Italian cooking.
Really, if the food producers cared about us, they'd sprinkle crap flavor on top of everything to be sure not to get those reward centers going.
Actually, the processed food producers pretty much do, as stated before, by upping the amount of salt and sugar in almost everything. When my daughter started to show signs of sugar sensitivity, we started reading labels in order to cut down on sugar intake and found added sugars in things that didnt used to have them and didnt even need them. Corn syrup in horseradish sauce?!! We (everyone in the family) decided to experimentally avoid anything with added sugars for one month, which pretty much took care of anything but pure meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains and dairy. Just one month (it was very hard to do, but not impossible). After that month, when we started trying to eat "normal" again, most processed food was noticeably way too sweet or way too salty. It was a short experiment, and we have all allowed various different types of processed foods back into our lives to different degrees, but we are much more conscious about what is added. And if you haven't had your mother's lasagna in decades, there is a small possibility if you have been eating mostly processed foods, that if you were to eat her food today you might find it "under-seasoned".0 -
Just a complete and total massive amount of "overanalyzing" in this thread. And a ridiculous amount of food shaming.0
-
I think you've just settled on blaming sugar
I became obese and unhealthy from eating too much sugar.
Heh. Well, there you go.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