A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie

UsedToBeHusky

Never, at any point, have I demonized processed foods as a whole. I understand some people can eat processed foods and be healthy. I can't, so I exclude them. This isn't hard.

You can't say that people shouldn't EVER exclude something when there are plenty of legitimate health reasons for some people to do so with some food groups.

I think that the concern is when the advice to exclude certain foods becomes so vehement in nature that people become fearful of a food that is most likely not an issue for them because the individual advising against it assumes that everyone has the same sensitivities as themselves.

jonnythan

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 said

You're essentially promoting an ED.

What?

See response above. Cliffs: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65849

What has that got to do with anything? Restricting a food group for health reasons is NOT courting an ED.

There's no "health" reason to completely abstain from, say, pizza or Whoppers.

Please try telling this to someone with Celiac. And that's just one example.

Don't make blanket statements about health-related issues, there's always going to be someone to tell you you're wrong. And you are.

That is a specific medical condition. You're making the blanket statement by demonizing processed foods.

Never, at any point, have I demonized processed foods as a whole. I understand some people can eat processed foods and be healthy. I can't, so I exclude them. This isn't hard.

You can't say that people shouldn't EVER exclude something when there are plenty of legitimate health reasons for some people to do so with some food groups.

This thread isn't about you and your disease.

brower47

There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Some people can't handle the range of freedom IIFYM offers, others hate the restriction of eating low carb, low sugar, low anything. IIFYM has its downfalls. people ignore micronutrients, fiber requirements all the time. So here's the thing. You cannot follow IIFYM and get enough fiber, without eating some moderately healthy things. Pizza, wings, burgers, and hot dogs have a combined fiber content of nil. They offer the micronutrient density of a paper plate. So the real question is...for you IIFYM guys, how are you achieving overall health not just in the weight loss department, but omega-3s, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc..? There's no case in which the sensible IIFYM macro follower is not eating moderately healthy foods anyways. Just like there's no way a sensible "clean eater" isn't enjoying a burger once in a while.

Why are you polarized?

You do not know what IIFYM means. The whole point of IIFYM is to get all of your macros and micros and THEN add other foods. It's not about eating only pizza, bacon, beer and nachos. I'm sad that people still think this is what IIFYM means.

How...do you get all your macros, and then add other foods? If you fulfill your macros, you will have just met the caloric restriction you have set while on IIFYM. Adding more food inherently causes you to go over every macro you just set. You cannot add more of something when you've just satisfied the values you've set for that exact thing.

Case in point. I have 375/175/60 as my macros. I have fulfilled them eating the things I usually eat, following IIFYM princples. Pop tarts, ice cream, Chinese takeout. With enough fiber, and micros, and EPA/omega-3s. By hitting these numbers. I have fulfilled my macros. How am I to add more food once I've already "gotten" all my macros? This this for real?

I'll admit I worded that poorly. I don't add foods after hitting my macros, you're right that I would then be over my calorie goal. I meant to limit that statement to my micros. As long as I've sufficiently met my micros (regardless of the type I derived it from), I can then consume whatever I like 'clean', 'dirty', 'good', 'bad', 'whole', 'processed' or any other silly label people wish to place on food, as long as it then fit my macros.
I hope that clears up my horribly stated post from before.

JeffseekingV

Most of the discussions are tailored toward the general public. One can't specify all the exceptions that are possible.

Are we to advise that water isn't recommended because there are people out there allergic to water?

SanteMulberry

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.

jofjltncb6

In...

...to catch up on this thread...

...to finally learn if poptarts are truly good or evil.

jonnythan

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.

SnicciFit

Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.

Unless avoidance of said specific food or group of food leads to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.

You're essentially promoting an ED.

How? I avoid trans fats, should I stop doing that? What about grains and starches? If I eat those, my blood glucose shoots up and that's not healthy. Should I eat those foods as to not appear to have an eating disorder?

Are you diabetic? If you have a valid medical reason for not eating certain foods that's one thing. We're talking about people without diseases.

Couldn't eating those foods be what CAUSES the disease? I would rather prevent disease than wait until I have it and THEN do something.

SnicciFit

What works for some, won't work for others, and vice versa. After years of losing weight only to gain it back, I've finally found a way to keep it off. For me, that means avoiding heavily processed foods.

So... If someone's overweight and their weight has been yo-yo-ing for years when they try to "diet" via counting (calories, points, carbs...whatever they're counting) and they just end up gaining it all back and then some, THEN is it ok to suggest that reducing their intake of heavily processed foods might help? Or is that still demonizing, ED...etc.?

SanteMulberry

Whilst TEF is generally not worth worrying about the point David Despain makes in the article I linked is an excellent one - you are more likely to get at the higher end of the maximum deliverable calories as shown on a food label etc the more processing the food has undergone.

Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.

As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.

Now someone pass me the steak tartare...

This is the food lifestyle philosophy that I follow. When I eat whole, minimally processed foods, I lose weight almost effortlessly. When I eat easy to digest, overly processed, pre-prepared foods, I gain weight very easily.
Also, if I eat overly processed foods, I do not feel or look my best.

I don't give a fig if there are studies out there to prove or disprove the effectiveness of primarily eating whole foods for fitness and health. I use my own body as my lab and I see the results, which is proof enough for me to convince me to keep doing what I am doing.

I do find it amusing whenever the discussions here go to processed foods, and most of us know that what is being referred to is junky foods like bologna, hot dogs, chips, pillowy white bready items, etc... folks have to get all nit-picky about "All food is processed in some way, unless you are eating it raw and not washing, or peeling, or chopping it before eating it." We all know full well what most folks are referring to when they say "processed foods."

^^^THIS^^^ It is important to point out to the Pop-Tart crowd that, while they, like Jonnythan might be burning LOTS of calories by playing tennis or weight-lifting or whatever, many others are incapable of burning calories at that rate because of disability. Those who have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" (in Kessler's terminology) and are seriously obese, often can not even walk around the block, let alone burn calories playing tennis. It is necessary for them to avoid the foods that they have been conditioned to "hyper-eat" in order to recover from what is a very serious illness. Once they recover from their addiction, and drastically reduce their weight, likely some of them will be able to indulge in eating some empty foods again, provided they maintain a strict hand on it and are dedicated exercisers. Otherwise, they will find themselves right back in the mess that they escaped. I know so many seriously obese people who have fallen off the wagon, not because they just could no longer control themselves and ate what they knew they shouldn't, but, instead, convinced themselves that a "few cookies won't wreck my diet--I'll just stay in my calorie allotment." Three packages of cookies later, just like the alcoholic surveying the empty bottles on "the day after", they beat themselves up and figure they might as well give up and give in to their addiction. If they had the willpower to resist eating excessive amounts of those foods, they would have done so a long time ago. Abstinence is the best course for most people who are seriously obese.

I have a serious problem with you using such a broad brush to paint people as so pathetically lacking willpower that they need you to scare them away from "processed" food for their own good.

If people don't want to eat certain things, fine. But trying to convince everyone that certain things are automatically bad, when they are not, because they're all just so pathetic and helpless they can't help but binge on them, is stupid.

Ahh--a new tactic born of desperation! What is pathetic is the stubborn defense of food that was deliberately engineered to trap people into overeating it. Would you insist that crack cocaine "is part of a normal healthy lifestyle" and that anyone who questions it is just trying to "demonize it" and that anyone who warns teens about its dangers is attempting to "scare them away from it for their own good"? Wouldn't that warning be natural from someone who was truly concerned about those young adults? Your line of reasoning would only make sense if you owned stock in or worked for a big food conglomerate. I cannot imagine another reason for it being so important to you that you keep insisting that everyone must eat junk food or risk out-of-control eating on one hand and then accuse others, who advise against eating junk food, of judging those same people to be "pathetically lacking in willpower". You are the one who implied that they must inevitably succumb to the lures of junk food. I find that laughably inconsistent.

DatMurse

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

SanteMulberry

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

Not me---I don't eat that crap--and haven't succumbed to eating a morsel of it in three years. While I was never a big consumer of junk foods, I ate it "in moderation" before I decided that it did not have any place in my lifestyle.

BTW, what makes you think that I am a "brother" and not a sister?

SnicciFit

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.

iAMsmiling

The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.

Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.

Delicate

Salt and sugar are moreish, which alot of prepackaged foods have a mix so that you eat more, which is how we got here in the first place (well most of us)

If demonizing them stops some people (who shouldn't be eating them because of medical condition) from eating them, what is the problem.

As alot of said medical conditions are caused by being overweight/obese why shouldn't they reduce prepackaged 'unhealthy'/processed goods in a bid to lose weight in a healthy way?

I'm being mean and making my body work for its calories =]

iAMsmiling

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.

da_bears10089

jofjltncb6

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?

SanteMulberry

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?

iAMsmiling

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?