Cutting junk food out of my diet?
Options
Replies
-
Is the term "empty calorie" just another oxymoron? A calorie is a unit of energy so even if a calorie has no other nutrient, it's still energy so therefore not empty?
I'm just asking....so please don't stone me to death
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »I've heard a few people define empty calories as those that provide little to no micros. Not sure if this qualifies as a legit definition or not.
That's how I understand the implied meaning when people say "empty calories" as well. If a raging alcoholic drinks most of his or her meals, it's common to say they are consuming empty calories not because they are devoid of energy, but because they aren't providing adequate nutrition. And we all know there is a real health danger of long term nutritional deficiencies. So I see it as being calories with little other nutrition, hence empty. Not dangerous or bad in and of itself, but of course over a sustained period can cause issues. Not too much traditional "junk" food is as empty as people think in this regard though. You can find good micros in ice cream, candy bars, pizza, and even chips that don't really qualify the food as "empty." Maybe lacking in some cases.
Okay so then by definition you believe cucumbers and iceburg lettuce are empty right?
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? It has those things I mentioned in a small serving size. 52g of cucumbers provide 76mg of potassium, which is enough to aid in reaching that goal. When I snack on cucumbers, I eat much more than 52g, and get about 10% of my daily potassium from them. So yeah.
Nope, I am arguing facts. Let's not get emotions involved in this
Would you consider lucky charms empty calories?
Not at all. A 3/4 cup serving size is fortified with a ton of vitamins and minerals, usually meeting 10%-50% of daily needs (and I eat way more than 3/4 cup). It also has protein, fiber, and tastes delicious. It's the opposite of empty, to me.
But plenty of people have come along saying that all the refined sugar and such makes it empty calories, how can there can 1 food that is both empty and not empty?
Going by the USDA definition (provided in the link), Lucky Charms would not be empty calories. Lucky Charms would be high in empty calories.
again, useless definition is useless. You are still deriving energy from those "empty" calories that you utilize for bodily functions, so they are not empty.
Agreed. That's not their point.0 -
Is the term "empty calorie" just another oxymoron? A calorie is a unit of energy so even if a calorie has no other nutrient, it's still energy so therefore not empty?
I'm just asking....so please don't stone me to death
It's a term with no official definition, so it can mean whatever you want. This tangent of discussion started with a link to the USDA definition.0 -
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
=====
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Well, actually, here's what the site Self Nutrition data has to say about iceberg lettuce:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
And cucumber:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
Looks like you could definitely do worse for your micros...
Also, a cucumber sandwich in the summertime is quite lovely.
Your point? It's still doesn't have a lot of anything.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »I've heard a few people define empty calories as those that provide little to no micros. Not sure if this qualifies as a legit definition or not.
That's how I understand the implied meaning when people say "empty calories" as well. If a raging alcoholic drinks most of his or her meals, it's common to say they are consuming empty calories not because they are devoid of energy, but because they aren't providing adequate nutrition. And we all know there is a real health danger of long term nutritional deficiencies. So I see it as being calories with little other nutrition, hence empty. Not dangerous or bad in and of itself, but of course over a sustained period can cause issues. Not too much traditional "junk" food is as empty as people think in this regard though. You can find good micros in ice cream, candy bars, pizza, and even chips that don't really qualify the food as "empty." Maybe lacking in some cases.
Okay so then by definition you believe cucumbers and iceburg lettuce are empty right?
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? It has those things I mentioned in a small serving size. 52g of cucumbers provide 76mg of potassium, which is enough to aid in reaching that goal. When I snack on cucumbers, I eat much more than 52g, and get about 10% of my daily potassium from them. So yeah.
Nope, I am arguing facts. Let's not get emotions involved in this
Would you consider lucky charms empty calories?
Not at all. A 3/4 cup serving size is fortified with a ton of vitamins and minerals, usually meeting 10%-50% of daily needs (and I eat way more than 3/4 cup). It also has protein, fiber, and tastes delicious. It's the opposite of empty, to me.
But plenty of people have come along saying that all the refined sugar and such makes it empty calories, how can there can 1 food that is both empty and not empty?
Going by the USDA definition (provided in the link), Lucky Charms would not be empty calories. Lucky Charms would be high in empty calories.
Well then, I guess we can officially take cereal, ice cream and pop tarts of the empty calories list or junk food list if that is what we are going by.
Is there an empty calories list?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
If food have macronutritents which your body can use how are they empty calories?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
If there are no calories, how can the calories be empty?
Because that's what the definition says. It's their made up term with their made up definition in their article.
Which is why it's a bogus statement. They can say whatever the want but the point is that they made up their own definition which isn't accurate. So someone here saying that is the true definition of what an empty calorie is false. Just because you might want to consider something like a soda an empty calorie does not mean someone else won't find it beneficial to something like their training. So to them it's not empty.
It appears you actually have no side you're taking in this debate and that you are here just to debate specific words.
The definition/description in question is from a USDA website. I think it would be safe to say it was written and/or peer reviewed by individuals with at least a Master's Degree in nutrition or equivalent. A bunch of people on here not liking it doesn't change it or the article from being directionally correct.
There are foods that are more nutrient dense, i.e. more nutrients per calorie consumed. It does not say not to eat less nutrient dense food (empty calories), just to limit it. Pretty much what many people on MFP are saying, get your macros/micros, which by the way, can be obtained most efficiently from nutrient dense food, and if you have some calories left, have the cookie.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Is the term "empty calorie" just another oxymoron? A calorie is a unit of energy so even if a calorie has no other nutrient, it's still energy so therefore not empty?
I'm just asking....so please don't stone me to death
It's a term with no official definition, so it can mean whatever you want. This tangent of discussion started with a link to the USDA definition.
In all honesty I kind of agree with that USDA definition. It just feels better to think there is at least energy in the alcohol I drink....lol0 -
Your point? It's still doesn't have a lot of anything.
Depends, as always, on what you're looking for:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/420531-does-iceburg-lettuce-have-any-nutritional-value/
(So, for example, I ran my MFP report a couple of hours ago, and my Vitamin A metric is a little low. So, now I know that I can toss a nice handful of lettuce into lunch or dinner and balance things out at little caloric cost. Pretty cool, for me at least! You mileage on this may vary, and that's cool for you)
Similarly:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/17339-nutritional-value-cucumber/
Powerhouses? Definitely not. Worth their bang for the buck to some people? I'd say yes.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
=====
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Well, actually, here's what the site Self Nutrition data has to say about iceberg lettuce:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
And cucumber:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
Looks like you could definitely do worse for your micros...
Also, a cucumber sandwich in the summertime is quite lovely.
Your point? It's still doesn't have a lot of anything.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »I've heard a few people define empty calories as those that provide little to no micros. Not sure if this qualifies as a legit definition or not.
That's how I understand the implied meaning when people say "empty calories" as well. If a raging alcoholic drinks most of his or her meals, it's common to say they are consuming empty calories not because they are devoid of energy, but because they aren't providing adequate nutrition. And we all know there is a real health danger of long term nutritional deficiencies. So I see it as being calories with little other nutrition, hence empty. Not dangerous or bad in and of itself, but of course over a sustained period can cause issues. Not too much traditional "junk" food is as empty as people think in this regard though. You can find good micros in ice cream, candy bars, pizza, and even chips that don't really qualify the food as "empty." Maybe lacking in some cases.
Okay so then by definition you believe cucumbers and iceburg lettuce are empty right?
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? It has those things I mentioned in a small serving size. 52g of cucumbers provide 76mg of potassium, which is enough to aid in reaching that goal. When I snack on cucumbers, I eat much more than 52g, and get about 10% of my daily potassium from them. So yeah.
Nope, I am arguing facts. Let's not get emotions involved in this
Would you consider lucky charms empty calories?
Not at all. A 3/4 cup serving size is fortified with a ton of vitamins and minerals, usually meeting 10%-50% of daily needs (and I eat way more than 3/4 cup). It also has protein, fiber, and tastes delicious. It's the opposite of empty, to me.
But plenty of people have come along saying that all the refined sugar and such makes it empty calories, how can there can 1 food that is both empty and not empty?
Going by the USDA definition (provided in the link), Lucky Charms would not be empty calories. Lucky Charms would be high in empty calories.
Well then, I guess we can officially take cereal, ice cream and pop tarts of the empty calories list or junk food list if that is what we are going by.
Is there an empty calories list?
Yes, here:
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
According to that list, fruit-flavored low-fat yogurt is my daily allowance for empty calories.0 -
OK, if I had to eat all things in moderation it would never have happened.
What you are physiologically/psychologically/hormonally capable of varies according to person and according to stage of life and past eating habits.
This is what I had to do and I offer it as something you can try if you want.
I quit sugar. Meaning all flour and starchy foods above the level of brussel sprouts. Someday, if I want to bulk, I may allow myself baked potatoes and bananas, but for now I keep my carbs under 30. I used to not be so strict but I wasn't losing much either.
Once my blood sugar stopped being captive, I stopped craving junk food. And it all became much easier. I don't have to stop eating servings of anything that I never eat in the first place. I never had enough self-control to do that.
I eat lots of fat. When I was adapting to this, and my child's frozen custard extravaganza was smelling up the vehicle, making me want to drive back and buy my own, I made it back home by promising myself that I would eat something and then obey my craving. I got home, got out he butter, and ate a couple of servings worth. That was about 200 calories but the frozen custard bowl of chocolate sugar I was craving would have been easily three times that. And even though I still knew I would enjoy sugar, my body's satiety in getting the fat killed my craving. I stayed home.
I see a lot of stuff on the web about how restriction means you will be constantly craving the food you never allow yourself. That seems like psychological warfare from the sugar dealers to me. It would be cheat meals that would forever keep me craving.
I do sometimes go off the eating strategy when I am in social situations. Now that I'm used to eating fat mostly, I tend to feel sick when I do so, which now reinforces to me that I want to stay on the menu. Also, I used to buy a couple of boxes of Tums and Alka Seltzer every month and took one or both every evening. I did this for at least fifteen years, probably two decades. I don't even keep it in the house anymore. You never know what physical ailments might get relief. But when I was out with my wife at a steak house, we got the blooming onion (and I ate a lot of it!). That night my stomach tried to set my throat on fire with acid. It was the first time I had revisited that problem in over a year.
So yes, you can "cheat" but you do it for other people. The good taste is offset by the physical problems that appear soon afterward.
That's my experience. I have no idea if it will work for you. I just think it is worth trying. Just quit it all. Give yourself a month of meat and non-starchy veggies. Then see what happens.
And I'd advise ditching all sugar substitutes. Stop teasing yourself. I'm at the point that brussel sprouts taste sweet to me. You palate can really adapt to new tastes if you give it a chance.
I do count calories to lose weight so I'm not claiming they don't matter. But why go to war against yourself and your cravings? Just end them and start craving stuff that your body needs not only for energy but for growth and repair.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
=====
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Well, actually, here's what the site Self Nutrition data has to say about iceberg lettuce:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
And cucumber:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
Looks like you could definitely do worse for your micros...
Also, a cucumber sandwich in the summertime is quite lovely.
Your point? It's still doesn't have a lot of anything.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »I've heard a few people define empty calories as those that provide little to no micros. Not sure if this qualifies as a legit definition or not.
That's how I understand the implied meaning when people say "empty calories" as well. If a raging alcoholic drinks most of his or her meals, it's common to say they are consuming empty calories not because they are devoid of energy, but because they aren't providing adequate nutrition. And we all know there is a real health danger of long term nutritional deficiencies. So I see it as being calories with little other nutrition, hence empty. Not dangerous or bad in and of itself, but of course over a sustained period can cause issues. Not too much traditional "junk" food is as empty as people think in this regard though. You can find good micros in ice cream, candy bars, pizza, and even chips that don't really qualify the food as "empty." Maybe lacking in some cases.
Okay so then by definition you believe cucumbers and iceburg lettuce are empty right?
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? It has those things I mentioned in a small serving size. 52g of cucumbers provide 76mg of potassium, which is enough to aid in reaching that goal. When I snack on cucumbers, I eat much more than 52g, and get about 10% of my daily potassium from them. So yeah.
Nope, I am arguing facts. Let's not get emotions involved in this
Would you consider lucky charms empty calories?
Not at all. A 3/4 cup serving size is fortified with a ton of vitamins and minerals, usually meeting 10%-50% of daily needs (and I eat way more than 3/4 cup). It also has protein, fiber, and tastes delicious. It's the opposite of empty, to me.
But plenty of people have come along saying that all the refined sugar and such makes it empty calories, how can there can 1 food that is both empty and not empty?
Going by the USDA definition (provided in the link), Lucky Charms would not be empty calories. Lucky Charms would be high in empty calories.
Well then, I guess we can officially take cereal, ice cream and pop tarts of the empty calories list or junk food list if that is what we are going by.
Is there an empty calories list?
Yes, here:
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
According to that list, fruit-flavored low-fat yogurt is my daily allowance for empty calories.
Yeah, that's the link already provided. I suppose only one food would on the list. Pure sugar.0 -
Willpower. Discipline. Plain and simple.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Yeah, that's the link already provided. I suppose only one food would on the list. Pure sugar.
Corn or potato starch, perhaps some oils too. Also vodka.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Yeah, that's the link already provided. I suppose only one food would on the list. Pure sugar.
Corn or potato starch, perhaps some oils too. Also vodka.
What oil would be 100% solid fat?
The point is the article is not about "empty calorie foods". Nearly all foods have empty calories. It's about how many empty calories are in the food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
=====
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Well, actually, here's what the site Self Nutrition data has to say about iceberg lettuce:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
And cucumber:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
Looks like you could definitely do worse for your micros...
Also, a cucumber sandwich in the summertime is quite lovely.
Your point? It's still doesn't have a lot of anything.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »I've heard a few people define empty calories as those that provide little to no micros. Not sure if this qualifies as a legit definition or not.
That's how I understand the implied meaning when people say "empty calories" as well. If a raging alcoholic drinks most of his or her meals, it's common to say they are consuming empty calories not because they are devoid of energy, but because they aren't providing adequate nutrition. And we all know there is a real health danger of long term nutritional deficiencies. So I see it as being calories with little other nutrition, hence empty. Not dangerous or bad in and of itself, but of course over a sustained period can cause issues. Not too much traditional "junk" food is as empty as people think in this regard though. You can find good micros in ice cream, candy bars, pizza, and even chips that don't really qualify the food as "empty." Maybe lacking in some cases.
Okay so then by definition you believe cucumbers and iceburg lettuce are empty right?
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? It has those things I mentioned in a small serving size. 52g of cucumbers provide 76mg of potassium, which is enough to aid in reaching that goal. When I snack on cucumbers, I eat much more than 52g, and get about 10% of my daily potassium from them. So yeah.
Nope, I am arguing facts. Let's not get emotions involved in this
Would you consider lucky charms empty calories?
Not at all. A 3/4 cup serving size is fortified with a ton of vitamins and minerals, usually meeting 10%-50% of daily needs (and I eat way more than 3/4 cup). It also has protein, fiber, and tastes delicious. It's the opposite of empty, to me.
But plenty of people have come along saying that all the refined sugar and such makes it empty calories, how can there can 1 food that is both empty and not empty?
Going by the USDA definition (provided in the link), Lucky Charms would not be empty calories. Lucky Charms would be high in empty calories.
Well then, I guess we can officially take cereal, ice cream and pop tarts of the empty calories list or junk food list if that is what we are going by.
Is there an empty calories list?
Yes, here:
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
According to that list, fruit-flavored low-fat yogurt is my daily allowance for empty calories.
Yeah, that's the link already provided. I suppose only one food would on the list. Pure sugar.
This list is weird. "Some" empty calories? I love the sweetened versus unsweetened applesauce comparison - that's interesting. Or the whole milk v. fat-free milk - fat-free milk isn't milk. Whole milk is real milk. Milk used to refer to just whole milk, nothing else. Yeah, coming from a *.gov site, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
An "empty" calorie would have to be completely devoid of any nutritional value/use whatsoever. Isn't that impossible?
I know it's common to refer to certain foods containing "empty" calories - I understand the use of the word (and have myself) to emphasize a point - but literally speaking, empty calories simply cannot exist.
Different components within a calorie, yes, an empty calorie - no.0 -
I tried, in the past, of giving up "junk" food, it didn't work end up gaining everything back and some.
Now I have little bit every day, not only have I met my goal weight, but have been maintaining now for 8 months!!
0 -
sugar free jelly and low fat yoghurt !0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
=====
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Well, actually, here's what the site Self Nutrition data has to say about iceberg lettuce:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
And cucumber:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
Looks like you could definitely do worse for your micros...
Also, a cucumber sandwich in the summertime is quite lovely.
Your point? It's still doesn't have a lot of anything.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »astralpictures wrote: »I've heard a few people define empty calories as those that provide little to no micros. Not sure if this qualifies as a legit definition or not.
That's how I understand the implied meaning when people say "empty calories" as well. If a raging alcoholic drinks most of his or her meals, it's common to say they are consuming empty calories not because they are devoid of energy, but because they aren't providing adequate nutrition. And we all know there is a real health danger of long term nutritional deficiencies. So I see it as being calories with little other nutrition, hence empty. Not dangerous or bad in and of itself, but of course over a sustained period can cause issues. Not too much traditional "junk" food is as empty as people think in this regard though. You can find good micros in ice cream, candy bars, pizza, and even chips that don't really qualify the food as "empty." Maybe lacking in some cases.
Okay so then by definition you believe cucumbers and iceburg lettuce are empty right?
Uh. no. Where did you come to that conclusion? Lettuce has lots of vitamin A and potassium, along with fiber. Cucumbers have potassium, fiber, and small amounts of vitamins.
Completely wrong. If doesn't have lots of anything.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? It has those things I mentioned in a small serving size. 52g of cucumbers provide 76mg of potassium, which is enough to aid in reaching that goal. When I snack on cucumbers, I eat much more than 52g, and get about 10% of my daily potassium from them. So yeah.
Nope, I am arguing facts. Let's not get emotions involved in this
Would you consider lucky charms empty calories?
Not at all. A 3/4 cup serving size is fortified with a ton of vitamins and minerals, usually meeting 10%-50% of daily needs (and I eat way more than 3/4 cup). It also has protein, fiber, and tastes delicious. It's the opposite of empty, to me.
But plenty of people have come along saying that all the refined sugar and such makes it empty calories, how can there can 1 food that is both empty and not empty?
Going by the USDA definition (provided in the link), Lucky Charms would not be empty calories. Lucky Charms would be high in empty calories.
Well then, I guess we can officially take cereal, ice cream and pop tarts of the empty calories list or junk food list if that is what we are going by.
Is there an empty calories list?
Yes, here:
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
According to that list, fruit-flavored low-fat yogurt is my daily allowance for empty calories.
Yeah, that's the link already provided. I suppose only one food would on the list. Pure sugar.
This list is weird. "Some" empty calories? I love the sweetened versus unsweetened applesauce comparison - that's interesting. Or the whole milk v. fat-free milk - fat-free milk isn't milk. Whole milk is real milk. Milk used to refer to just whole milk, nothing else. Yeah, coming from a *.gov site, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
An "empty" calorie would have to be completely devoid of any nutritional value/use whatsoever. Isn't that impossible?
I know it's common to refer to certain foods containing "empty" calories - I understand the use of the word (and have myself) to emphasize a point - but literally speaking, empty calories simply cannot exist.
Different components within a calorie, yes, an empty calorie - no.
Yes, it's a silly definition. There could be empty calories even by your definition though. Calories from gluten, for example, would be empty for someone with celiac disease because they would cause harm rather than provide value/use.0 -
OK, if I had to eat all things in moderation it would never have happened.
What you are physiologically/psychologically/hormonally capable of varies according to person and according to stage of life and past eating habits.
This is what I had to do and I offer it as something you can try if you want.
I quit sugar. Meaning all flour and starchy foods above the level of brussel sprouts. Someday, if I want to bulk, I may allow myself baked potatoes and bananas, but for now I keep my carbs under 30. I used to not be so strict but I wasn't losing much either.
Once my blood sugar stopped being captive, I stopped craving junk food. And it all became much easier. I don't have to stop eating servings of anything that I never eat in the first place. I never had enough self-control to do that.
I eat lots of fat. When I was adapting to this, and my child's frozen custard extravaganza was smelling up the vehicle, making me want to drive back and buy my own, I made it back home by promising myself that I would eat something and then obey my craving. I got home, got out he butter, and ate a couple of servings worth. That was about 200 calories but the frozen custard bowl of chocolate sugar I was craving would have been easily three times that. And even though I still knew I would enjoy sugar, my body's satiety in getting the fat killed my craving. I stayed home.
I see a lot of stuff on the web about how restriction means you will be constantly craving the food you never allow yourself. That seems like psychological warfare from the sugar dealers to me. It would be cheat meals that would forever keep me craving.
I do sometimes go off the eating strategy when I am in social situations. Now that I'm used to eating fat mostly, I tend to feel sick when I do so, which now reinforces to me that I want to stay on the menu. Also, I used to buy a couple of boxes of Tums and Alka Seltzer every month and took one or both every evening. I did this for at least fifteen years, probably two decades. I don't even keep it in the house anymore. You never know what physical ailments might get relief. But when I was out with my wife at a steak house, we got the blooming onion (and I ate a lot of it!). That night my stomach tried to set my throat on fire with acid. It was the first time I had revisited that problem in over a year.
So yes, you can "cheat" but you do it for other people. The good taste is offset by the physical problems that appear soon afterward.
That's my experience. I have no idea if it will work for you. I just think it is worth trying. Just quit it all. Give yourself a month of meat and non-starchy veggies. Then see what happens.
And I'd advise ditching all sugar substitutes. Stop teasing yourself. I'm at the point that brussel sprouts taste sweet to me. You palate can really adapt to new tastes if you give it a chance.
I do count calories to lose weight so I'm not claiming they don't matter. But why go to war against yourself and your cravings? Just end them and start craving stuff that your body needs not only for energy but for growth and repair.
I am not going to break down every thing you said, but this post is complete and utter nonsense.
Cut out all sugar, really? So now vegetables and baked potatoes are bad? Give me a break.
so eating pure butter is OK, but some frozen chocolate custard is bad? Totally ridiculous...
so when you go to a restaurant do you just eat pure butter???0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions