A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
I think you've just settled on blaming sugar
I became obese and unhealthy from eating too much sugar.
Heh. Well, there you go.
Selecting words out of context in order to mislead is lying, Jonnythan. I SAID, I became obese and unhealthy AS A CHILD from eating too much sugar. I did not buy the food that was put in front of me and I learned to make much better food choices when I became an adult.
ETA: I'm done with this discussion for today. If it is still around tomorrow (I doubt it--I think everyone's position is clear) I will rejoin. Have a good remainder of the evening, folks.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.
Selecting words out of context in order to mislead is lying, Jonnythan. I SAID, I became obese and unhealthy AS A CHILD from eating too much sugar. I did not buy the food that was put in front of me and I learned to make much better food choices when I became an adult.
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?0 -
True. What we call a calorie is actually a kilocalorie, or 4184 joules. A calorie is 4.184 joules.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.
Selecting words out of context in order to mislead is lying, Jonnythan. I SAID, I became obese and unhealthy AS A CHILD from eating too much sugar. I did not buy the food that was put in front of me and I learned to make much better food choices when I became an adult.
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
0 -
Bump so I can continue reading later0
-
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.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?
Nope, I only did undergrad. Not that it's relevant to the discussion at all (but that's not surprising at this point).
That said, you compared a persons desire for a big mac, to their desire for sex from a prostitute. You compared the offer of food to the offer of sex. It can't get more apples and oranges than that. There's so much wrong with that, so much logical disconnect, that it boggles the mind that anyone would think it acted as an appropriate analogy. You boggle the mind and you're doing it on purpose.
The ends do not justify the means.0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
How do you know those are false? I think it's interesting the way you tell strangers how their individual body chemistry works.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.
Exactly...........they had Doctors, Nutritionists and Dieticians on our local news and they all agreed that consuming items with added sugar more than a couple times a month is detrimental to long term health and no one knows when the turn in health will occur.
I prefer to get my sugar from vegetables and fruit.0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
How do you know those are false? I think it's interesting the way you tell strangers how their individual body chemistry works.
Because it's physically impossible for them to be true.
The first is obvious. If you eat nothing and don't exercise, you will lose weight very very quickly.
The second is obvious as well. Your body cannot build mass while in a significant calorie deficit. Mulberry here is convinced that even small amounts of sugar, consumed while in a large calorie deficit, will make her gain weight. It's ridiculous.0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
How do you know those are false? I think it's interesting the way you tell strangers how their individual body chemistry works.
Because it's physically impossible for them to be true.
The first is obvious. If you eat nothing and don't exercise, you will lose weight very very quickly.
The second is obvious as well. Your body cannot build mass while in a significant calorie deficit. Mulberry here is convinced that even small amounts of sugar, consumed while in a large calorie deficit, will make her gain weight. It's ridiculous.
I have had times where I didn't eat and didn't exercise and didn't lose an ounce.................so that isn't true.........
I have done water fasts several times as I was conditioned from a child on to dislike eating. That is a very hard cycle to break.0 -
I have had times where I didn't eat and didn't exercise and didn't lose an ounce.................so that isn't true.........
Yeah?
Don't consume a morsel of food for a week and see what happens to your body mass. This is an extremely silly argument.0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
How do you know those are false? I think it's interesting the way you tell strangers how their individual body chemistry works.
People on here are not defying the laws of thermodynamics. You can lose weight on a high carb diet.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?
Nope, I only did undergrad. Not that it's relevant to the discussion at all (but that's not surprising at this point).
That said, you compared a persons desire for a big mac, to their desire for sex from a prostitute. You compared the offer of food to the offer of sex. It can't get more apples and oranges than that. There's so much wrong with that, so much logical disconnect, that it boggles the mind that anyone would think it acted as an appropriate analogy. You boggle the mind and you're doing it on purpose.
The ends do not justify the means.
In the past she has clearly stated she doesn't believe you should eat or have sex for pleasure. That's the link, pleasure.0 -
Why do people invest so much emotion and energy into these discussions? It always ends up like this: A bunch of monkeys flinging poop at each other and running in circles trying to screech louder than all the other monkeys. Just sayin'.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.)
I eat my food in less than 15 minutes. Tyson Diced Grilled Chicken / Rotisserie from the supermarket + steamers. Done. I don't cook, just use my microwave. No excuses these days for anyone to not eat healthy. If you look carefully you can find convenient healthy food.0 -
So...two camps.
Camp #1: eat what you want within reason. Don't go overboard, but don't worry about it if you eat a bit more than you intended, it's not the end of the world. If you really want something, don't obsess about it, don't beat yourself up about liking it - have it or don't have it. Whatever. [eats burger with salad and a shake, leaving half the shake because they're full]
Camp #2: Everything's bad, it's all designed to trick me and trap me and there's no way anybody could possibly ever resist that demonic packet. I can't possibly be expected to have any responsibility for my own actions, my own choices, that big bad wolf holding the cookies out made me do it. It's bad! Bad! Not my fault! Not my responsibility! You made me like this! By buying those foods I like so much and daring to eat them responsibly! [hides wrappers from four big mac super sized meals, two double cheeseburgers meals, a fillet of fish, three apple pies and a mcflurry]
[points at guy from camp #1] YOU made me do that!0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
Perhaps for you---and even many other people (particularly men), but not for others. Find any obese person and examine their activity and their food intake. They will be extremely sedentary and they will be eating far more carbohydrates (for many, almost exclusively starch and sugar) than their body requires to fuel that level of activity. They are wearing the proof of that statement.
Are you a "special snowflake" who is very sedentary and takes in a majority of your calories in starch/sugar and yet remains slim AND healthy? Haven't seen anyone like that yet (including children) but I'm sure scientists would love to examine you if that is the case.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?
Nope, I only did undergrad. Not that it's relevant to the discussion at all (but that's not surprising at this point).
That said, you compared a persons desire for a big mac, to their desire for sex from a prostitute. You compared the offer of food to the offer of sex. It can't get more apples and oranges than that. There's so much wrong with that, so much logical disconnect, that it boggles the mind that anyone would think it acted as an appropriate analogy. You boggle the mind and you're doing it on purpose.
The ends do not justify the means.
In the past she has clearly stated she doesn't believe you should eat or have sex for pleasure. That's the link, pleasure.
And THAT is clearly a lie. I have NEVER said that one should not get pleasure from either food or sex. Our bodies were undoubtedly designed for pleasure. However, I think people are made miserable by the unthinking pursuit of pleasure AT THE EXPENSE OF BODY AND SOUL. I try to help people like that every day--they are not happy people. Distorting what I am saying or have said is a poor method of argumentation.0 -
So...two camps.
Camp #1: eat what you want within reason. Don't go overboard, but don't worry about it if you eat a bit more than you intended, it's not the end of the world. If you really want something, don't obsess about it, don't beat yourself up about liking it - have it or don't have it. Whatever. [eats burger with salad and a shake, leaving half the shake because they're full]
Camp #2: Everything's bad, it's all designed to trick me and trap me and there's no way anybody could possibly ever resist that demonic packet. I can't possibly be expected to have any responsibility for my own actions, my own choices, that big bad wolf holding the cookies out made me do it. It's bad! Bad! Not my fault! Not my responsibility! You made me like this! By buying those foods I like so much and daring to eat them responsibly! [hides wrappers from four big mac super sized meals, two double cheeseburgers meals, a fillet of fish, three apple pies and a mcflurry]
[points at guy from camp #1] YOU made me do that!
I think your assessment is comical but quite inaccurate.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.
Exactly...........they had Doctors, Nutritionists and Dieticians on our local news and they all agreed that consuming items with added sugar more than a couple times a month is detrimental to long term health and no one knows when the turn in health will occur.
I prefer to get my sugar from vegetables and fruit.
^^^THIS^^^^0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
Perhaps for you---and even many other people (particularly men), but not for others. Find any obese person and examine their activity and their food intake. They will be extremely sedentary and they will be eating far more carbohydrates (for many, almost exclusively starch and sugar) than their body requires to fuel that level of activity. They are wearing the proof of that statement.
Are you a "special snowflake" who is very sedentary and takes in a majority of your calories in starch/sugar and yet remains slim AND healthy? Haven't seen anyone like that yet (including children) but I'm sure scientists would love to examine you if that is the case.
They are proof that they are eating too many calories relatives to the calories they burn. They are not proof that you must exercise to lose weight, nor are they proof that you cannot lose weight eating a lot of carbs.
I asked why you were obese, not why you were unhealthy. You said it was because you didn't exercise and ate carbs. The simple fact is that you could have been at a normal weight without exercise and while eating high carbs. I can personally point to any number of people I know who eat 60+% of their calories from carbs and are non-obese. Many of them do no exercise at all.
The human body builds body mass if there is a surplus of calories. It breaks down body mass if there is a deficit of calories. You are not a special exception to this rule.0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
How do you know those are false? I think it's interesting the way you tell strangers how their individual body chemistry works.
Because it's physically impossible for them to be true.
The first is obvious. If you eat nothing and don't exercise, you will lose weight very very quickly.
The second is obvious as well. Your body cannot build mass while in a significant calorie deficit. Mulberry here is convinced that even small amounts of sugar, consumed while in a large calorie deficit, will make her gain weight. It's ridiculous.
No, that is not, in fact, what I believe. You forget that I was on many low-calorie diets over the years. I have experienced the illness that came from them. Sugar adds only calories (which clearly, an obese person hardly needs) and actually takes nutrients from the body to process. Why would any sensible person want to do that to their bodies? I have repeatedly stated in the forums that ANY reduction in calories will result in weight loss---IF THAT'S ALL YOU CARE ABOUT. However, I prefer to preserve what health I have now that I have discovered what works to do that while reducing body fat. So far, I've been doing that swimmingly for three years now. 0 -
What do you blame your adult obesity on, then?
A lack of exercise due to arthritis and a higher carbohydrate diet than is correct for my particular body type and bio-chemistry.
So you believe that exercise is necessary, and that you can't lose weight on "high carb."
Both of these are ridiculously false.
Perhaps for you---and even many other people (particularly men), but not for others. Find any obese person and examine their activity and their food intake. They will be extremely sedentary and they will be eating far more carbohydrates (for many, almost exclusively starch and sugar) than their body requires to fuel that level of activity. They are wearing the proof of that statement.
Are you a "special snowflake" who is very sedentary and takes in a majority of your calories in starch/sugar and yet remains slim AND healthy? Haven't seen anyone like that yet (including children) but I'm sure scientists would love to examine you if that is the case.
They are proof that they are eating too many calories relatives to the calories they burn. They are not proof that you must exercise to lose weight, nor are they proof that you cannot lose weight eating a lot of carbs.
I asked why you were obese, not why you were unhealthy. You said it was because you didn't exercise and ate carbs. The simple fact is that you could have been at a normal weight without exercise and while eating high carbs. I can personally point to any number of people I know who eat 60+% of their calories from carbs and are non-obese. Many of them do no exercise at all.
The human body builds body mass if there is a surplus of calories. It breaks down body mass if there is a deficit of calories. You are not a special exception to this rule.
Some people use calories much more efficiently than others--women, as a rule use calories more efficiently than men, older people use calories more efficiently than younger people, etc. Some have high BMRs, some have low BMRs. What works for one will fail with another. Another may even become ill following the plan that another thrives on. We are all unique enough that it is a arrogant mistake to think that we can know everything there is to know about what will work for a loss of body fat for another person. If that were possible, the medical establishment would have long since solved the problem of the obesity epidemic. It is FAR more complex than "calories in, calories out". You apparently don't even believe the CICO principle yourself as you have noted that there are those who eat a lot of carbs and don't exercise and yet remain slim.0 -
It is FAR more complex than "calories in, calories out". You apparently don't even believe the CICO principle yourself as you have noted that there are those who eat a lot of carbs and don't exercise and yet remain slim.
It is calories in, calories out. Period. There's literally nothing else it can possibly be. The body creates mass with calories, and breaking down mass releases calories. It's all calorie balance. There's a host of things that can affect the "calories out" part of the equation, but at the end of the day it's calories in calories out.
I don't understand your second sentence. You seem to be reading "high carbs" and somehow, in your mind, translating that to "calorie surplus."
I think that this one line perfectly captures everything irrational about your posts: you are so bizarrely and irrationally anti-carb, you simply read "carbs" as "excess calories" or something.0 -
If we're going to blame the food manufacturers, then how do we explain how so many people *can* eat these products responsibly/in moderation? Or were these people just born with a special gene that makes them immune to the food manufacturers' voodoo magic?
That's a great question, Jof. I am assuming the same reason that not everyone who ever tries cigarettes, crack or heroin ends up in rehab? Even those who *can* eat those products responsibly/in moderation would most likely benefit in some way from reduction or all-together elimination of them. Also, I think that once someone is addicted (for lack of a better term) to these foods (or other substances), the best course of action is avoidance. At the very least until they get it under control.
Your comment is consistent with what I believed in 2012. I fought that good fight in the MFP forums back then. (Hopefully no one digs back deep enough into my post history to find those. =P ) However, now, I'm not so convinced...that avoiding the foods is a feasible long-term solution, or that avoiding them for a while will somehow lead one to being able to eat them in moderation later.
That said, I really don't have the "answer". I've found that, for me, self-control/moderation of these "trigger" foods works because I still keep the overall calories in check. I think I used the "addiction" angle as an excuse to eat too much of them like a typical "dieter" uses the "well, I had a 100 calories more than I should have...fell off the diet...might as well eat this entire cheesecake...and a carton of ice cream...and a box of Twinkies" reasoning.
I recall many an argument with you back then. LOL!
(Just so we're clear, I'm not saying now that you were right and I was wrong...
...I'm just saying that my views on the subject are slightly more nuanced now.
There's a difference. It's subtle, but still a difference.)
ETA:
I have *no* problem admitting when I'm wrong...if I'm wrong.
I mean, hypothetically speaking, of course.
I'm just happy you're on my FL now. :flowerforyou: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.)
I eat my food in less than 15 minutes. Tyson Diced Grilled Chicken / Rotisserie from the supermarket + steamers. Done. I don't cook, just use my microwave. No excuses these days for anyone to not eat healthy. If you look carefully you can find convenient healthy food.
I'm not sure how the two quotes go together? Someone who does things differently than you, again, even unnecessarily, does not have an eating disorder, without actual, significant harm caused. Someone who doesn't eat Tyson chicken doesn't have an ED.0 -
"It might be better to completely abstain from certain foods if you simply cannot control yourself enough to eat them in moderation.
^^ This is rational and reasonable.
"I am going to tell you things that aren't really true in order to make you so scared of certain foods that you will think it's impossible to consume them in the context of a healthy diet."
^^ This is neither rational nor reasonable. It's stupid and it's dishonest.
I can agree with this, however, I agree with what Dallas & Melissa Hartwig say in their book "It Starts With Food" that all food can either make you more healthy or less healthy. There is no food Switzerland (in their words). That being said, they (and I) also believe there is a time & place for those foods that make you "less healthy". It's a matter of making decisions based on whether that particular food is "worth it" or not at that particular time and also considering the affects of that particular food on YOU (not on anyone else, just YOU).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.
I think the difference would be adding food, spices...etc. rather than chemicals.
ETA: But, that's not what this thread/the link are about.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.)
I eat my food in less than 15 minutes. Tyson Diced Grilled Chicken / Rotisserie from the supermarket + steamers. Done. I don't cook, just use my microwave. No excuses these days for anyone to not eat healthy. If you look carefully you can find convenient healthy food.
OMG, do you really think that packaged or supermarket rotisserie chicken is eating healthy?????0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions