CALORIE QUALITY
Replies
-
3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Perform how?
well in that case, I say B but only if he has left over ice cream. because then I will be happy too
Personally, I'd go for pie, but ice cream is good.0 -
nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
A sugar crash is when you are out cycling for over four hours and you are so busy trying to squeeze a glucose/fructose carb gel down your throat you fall off your bike.0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
A sugar crash is when you are out cycling for over four hours and you are so busy trying to squeeze a glucose/fructose carb gel down your throat you fall off your bike.
I chortled.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
I'm so here for ALL.OF.THIS!!!!!!!!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
A sugar crash is when you are out cycling for over four hours and you are so busy trying to squeeze a glucose/fructose carb gel down your throat you fall off your bike.
I have no trouble visualizing this. Thank you for the explanation
0 -
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Wasn't me!
I'm not pretending that people must eat my way OR ELSE, lol. I'm not suggesting that if you eat different foods, you will 1) Binge and 2) Become insane.
Who did that?
"Stop pretending you're more virtuous" is really good advice for those who think that. If you think that your WOE makes you better, it probably is REALLY GOOD ADVICE. Stop pretending you're more virtuous.0 -
ForestFairy022 wrote: »mattyc772014 wrote: »Has anyone actually tried to eat 600 calories of broccoli in one meal?
I hate vegetables - hahaha...
lol I eat broccoli daily. About 1 bowl a day at one meal. Love it. But if I ate 6 bowls I think I'd be sick.
0 -
OP and 3stepsahead.
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
0 -
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Wasn't me!
I'm not pretending that people must eat my way OR ELSE, lol. I'm not suggesting that if you eat different foods, you will 1) Binge and 2) Become insane.
Who did that?
"Stop pretending you're more virtuous" is really good advice for those who think that. If you think that your WOE makes you better, it probably is REALLY GOOD ADVICE. Stop pretending you're more virtuous.
Made me think of this guy:
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
shrinkingletters wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Perform how?
well in that case, I say B but only if he has left over ice cream. because then I will be happy too
Personally, I'd go for pie, but ice cream is good.
Me, too.
0 -
Of course. If someone says that one can lose weight without junk food and remain sane...that's really the same thing as saying they don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Wasn't me!
I'm not pretending that people must eat my way OR ELSE, lol. I'm not suggesting that if you eat different foods, you will 1) Binge and 2) Become insane.
Who did that?
"Stop pretending you're more virtuous" is really good advice for those who think that. If you think that your WOE makes you better, it probably is REALLY GOOD ADVICE. Stop pretending you're more virtuous.
Made me think of this guy:
So, it would be logical for you to think that.
...NOT.-1 -
whoooooooosh0
-
Geez, sorry. I was talking about someone who felt they had a "superior" way of eating.
Of course. If someone says that one can lose weight without junk food and remain sane...that's really the same thing as saying they don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Wasn't me!
I'm not pretending that people must eat my way OR ELSE, lol. I'm not suggesting that if you eat different foods, you will 1) Binge and 2) Become insane.
Who did that?
"Stop pretending you're more virtuous" is really good advice for those who think that. If you think that your WOE makes you better, it probably is REALLY GOOD ADVICE. Stop pretending you're more virtuous.
Made me think of this guy:
So, it would be logical for you to think that.
...NOT.
0 -
Of course. If someone says that one can lose weight without junk food and remain sane...that's really the same thing as saying they don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Wasn't me!
I'm not pretending that people must eat my way OR ELSE, lol. I'm not suggesting that if you eat different foods, you will 1) Binge and 2) Become insane.
Who did that?
"Stop pretending you're more virtuous" is really good advice for those who think that. If you think that your WOE makes you better, it probably is REALLY GOOD ADVICE. Stop pretending you're more virtuous.
Made me think of this guy:
So, it would be logical for you to think that.
...NOT.
Considering she was agreeing with you, perhaps you just need to step away from the computer for a while.0 -
I apologize for taking it wrong. Sincerely. I'm sorry.
Geez, sorry. I was talking about someone who felt they had a "superior" way of eating.
Of course. If someone says that one can lose weight without junk food and remain sane...that's really the same thing as saying they don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Wasn't me!
I'm not pretending that people must eat my way OR ELSE, lol. I'm not suggesting that if you eat different foods, you will 1) Binge and 2) Become insane.
Who did that?
"Stop pretending you're more virtuous" is really good advice for those who think that. If you think that your WOE makes you better, it probably is REALLY GOOD ADVICE. Stop pretending you're more virtuous.
Made me think of this guy:
So, it would be logical for you to think that.
...NOT.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
OP and 3stepsahead.
Who, in this thread, has pretended that their diet was the Superior Way Of Eating? Hmm? Who?lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Yup. That's also why I specifically referenced OP in my post.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
A sugar crash is when you are out cycling for over four hours and you are so busy trying to squeeze a glucose/fructose carb gel down your throat you fall off your bike.
0 -
I_Will_End_You wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Were the macros the same? If so, I'd think they'd be about equal.
Given the list of foods their macros would not be equal0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Were the macros the same? If so, I'd think they'd be about equal.
Given the list of foods their macros would not be equal
"Fast food" is a really broad category. You could probably hit a wide range of macros if it was one of the three things that you ate, given that you can choose options that are lower in carbohydrates or fat.0 -
shrinkingletters wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Perform how?
well in that case, I say B but only if he has left over ice cream. because then I will be happy too
Personally, I'd go for pie, but ice cream is good.
ice cream pie?
0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I always define junk food as food that is high in calories but has little to no nutritional value. That doesn't stop me from eating said foods, but I understand that I'm getting no nutritional benefit from them so I shouldn't make all my meals with it. Yes, you can eat all junk food and hit your calorie goal, but if you go by that definition, you get almost no nutrition out of it. No vitamins or minerals or other things your body needs to function properly. It is the balance of what you eat that matters for health reasons, but I think the initial comment was about just the calories, not the nutritional content of food.0 -
Some people get so worked up others eating things that give them pleasure in the context of a balanced diet. It's so puritanical. They'd love to brand them with a scarlet S for having a cookie.0
-
Could you explain what you mean by "justify"? I'm NOT picking on grammar - I'd be the last one to do so as mine is often just about as bad as it can be. I'm not picking on diction! I just truly don't understand what you mean there and am trying to clarify.
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I'm not hung up on words like "healthy, junk, clean," etc. I don't care who uses what words.
As you know, since we've discussed it before, I do believe that some foods are bad for us. I do not believe that a carrot will undo the trans fats in something else. I also know that you do not believe that some foods are bad for us, but that if your overall diet is good, no food can be harmful.
We have disagreed about this before, so it's clear that we disagree. There is really no reason to go over it all again, IMO.
You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine.
0 -
Double posted.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions