CALORIE QUALITY
Replies
-
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.
Not me! I enjoy many foods. I'm every bit as delighted to eat a bowl of fruit as almost any cookie. No Ss here.
I sure hope that you don't think everyone who chooses, say, fruit, over a cookie derives no pleasure from the fruit. I eat many, many very tasty things that are also healthy.
Furthermore, I support the choice to eat cookies and wouldn't label anyone as anything because they choose to eat them. Nor do I think that eating or not eating a cookie has anything to do with what kind of a person one is.
I have known and loved people who ate nothing that was good for them. The smartest, kindest, funniest, most honest and generous person I've ever known almost never ate anything that was good for him. When he'd tease me about cooking possum and eating rabbit food, I'd tease back and say, "I know, you don't like the healthy food. And you've got the heart attacks to prove it!" And we were still best friends.
I don't know why anyone makes judgements about others based on their diet. Small minds, I guess. But the, "My WOE is better than your WOE" is ridiculous.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.
Yeah, I was going to say that, but then saw you had already, so figured I'd just jump on your post.
I get why people find "junk food" negative or worry that it plays into the "bad foods" thing and takes the focus off overall diet, but to me it's a slangy term that is well understood, even if we might disagree about what has little to no nutritional value, as it's context dependent. (For example, I would usually consider Gatorade to be "junk food," but I drank some--rather than my usual water--during the run portion of an Olympic tri a few weekends ago, as I'd not eaten anything else since a few hours before starting the race, and it really helped me. So in that context it had huge nutritional value.)
What puzzles me, though, is OP's initial assumption that "junk food" includes "processed foods" (an Amy's Light and Lean is neither calorie dense nor low nutrient, and same for Fage 0% greek yogurt or some smoked salmon or canned tomatoes). I would also take issue with the inclusion of pizza--plenty of pizza will have lots of nutrients and not be especially high calorie. For example, I usually get a thin crust with lots of vegetables, olive oil, some leaner meat if possible, from this Italian place we like. If I make it at home it's even more nutrient dense and has fewer calories. Heck, even on the rare occasion I get Chicago style I like to include spinach and mushrooms and the like.
OP seems into the black and white (or good vs. bad) view of the world. If you like ice cream on occasion, well, you eat nothing but JUNK!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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.0 -
We all use words. Using words isn't the same thing as being hung up on them. I don't care who uses what words. You seem much more hung up on the words than I am.
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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I don't say people should eat healthy. I think I should, but I truly do not care who eats what and don't judge a person by their diet. That's just silly.
As I said, I know you disagree with me about some foods being bad for us. It's cool. We disagree. It's not the end of the world.
I will not justify my diction, lol.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.
Not me! I enjoy many foods. I'm every bit as delighted to eat a bowl of fruit as almost any cookie. No Ss here.
I sure hope that you don't think everyone who chooses, say, fruit, over a cookie derives no pleasure from the fruit. I eat many, many very tasty things that are also healthy.
Furthermore, I support the choice to eat cookies and wouldn't label anyone as anything because they choose to eat them. Nor do I think that eating or not eating a cookie has anything to do with what kind of a person one is.
I have known and loved people who ate nothing that was good for them. The smartest, kindest, funniest, most honest and generous person I've ever known almost never ate anything that was good for him. When he'd tease me about cooking possum and eating rabbit food, I'd tease back and say, "I know, you don't like the healthy food. And you've got the heart attacks to prove it!" And we were still best friends.
I don't know why anyone makes judgements about others based on their diet. Small minds, I guess. But the, "My WOE is better than your WOE" is ridiculous.
0 -
The Cookie Monster was the first against the wall when the Revolution came. They sent him to a reeducation camp and made him do propaganda films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH9IO6iMO78
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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.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).
Beautifully put, as always. I get just as much pleasure out of my bowl of cottage cheese and veggies (with ALL the sriracha) as I do a bowl of ice cream. I incorporate ALL the foods I like for health and pleasure.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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).
Beautifully put, as always. I get just as much pleasure out of my bowl of cottage cheese and veggies (with ALL the sriracha) as I do a bowl of ice cream. I incorporate ALL the foods I like for health and pleasure.
Cottage cheese, veggies, and sriracha ARE all delicious. I may have to try them together. For a while my nightly snack (in lieu of ice cream) was cottage cheese and pepperoncinis (which I like to eat on their own--a co-worker told me this was weird when I ate one off of a salad not long ago, but I love them so).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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.
As in what?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.
Last night I had cookies and ice cream because I worked out a lot and had a lot of calories left at the end of the day. Today? My workouts were EPIC.
For the record, I can highly recommend ginger snaps broken up over butter pecan gelato. A+++++, would eat again.
0 -
Moderation is great. I support it 100%.
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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.
It's when people say that everyone has to include junk food OR ELSE that it gets ridiculous. It's always OR ELSE:
You will fail.
You will binge
You will be unhappy
You will be insane...
...and none of it is true for everyone.
If a person feels that they will fail, binge, be unhappy or insane, then they should OF COURSE include whatever food food prevents those behaviors or unpleasant feelings. But that stuff is not a foregone conclusion for everyone.
0 -
I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
pizza ice cream sounds disgusting.
0 -
nordlead2005 wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
pizza ice cream sounds disgusting.
I could kill some ice cream pizza though... Just bake some cinnamon sugar into the crust. Mmm.0 -
Moderation is great. I support it 100%.
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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.
It's when people say that everyone has to include junk food OR ELSE that it gets ridiculous. It's always ORE ELSE:
You will fail.
You will binge
You will be unhappy
You will be insane...
...and none of it is true for everyone.
If a person feels that they will fail, binge, be unhappy or insane, then they should OF COURSE include whatever food food prevents those behaviors or unpleasant feelings. But that stuff is not a foregone conclusion for everyone.
True. I couldn't cut out junk food because then I would backslide quickly! Being able to have junk food, even if it's smaller amounts, is much more emotionally satisfying to me. But there are people that believe they have to cut out all junk food, and if it works for them, that's great. I think it depends on your relationship with food and how you view it as to whether or not you can work it into your diet or you need to cut it out completely, even if temporarily. If you want to do that, that's fine, it's just that you don't HAVE to. There are ways to work in junk food if you really want it, that's what a lot of people don't understand.0 -
nordlead2005 wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
pizza ice cream sounds disgusting.
Yeah, not one of B&J's best efforts.0 -
The Cookie Monster was the first against the wall when the Revolution came. They sent him to a reeducation camp and made him do propaganda films.
Cookie Monster love Big Brother.0 -
I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
0 -
UltimateEscape wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
Care explaining how cookies, cake and white bread are able to break the laws of physics, specifically the law of conservation of energy?
0 -
UltimateEscape wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
I don't think you know how this thing really works...
Ah, nevermind... I see you just copy pasted a link without reading or understanding it.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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.
As in what?
Soda, hard candies, cake (espically with OMGTONSOFFROSTING), candy bars, cookies, that kind of stuff. Yes, something like cake has some nutritional value (eggs...wheat...milk), but it's a very small amount. I won't say it's not 'proportional' to the amount of calories you get out of it, but you do get more bang for your buck, so to speak, with veggies and lean meats and balanced meals. 120 calories worth of peas gives you a lot more food than 120 calories of hard candy, even if the 120 calories of candy is tastier, and gives you more vitamins and nutrients than the candy does. You have to look at what your calorie limit is for the day and what else you're eating, then balance your diet according to YOUR tastes and how you want to split up your calories. If you're willing to give up amounts of food to add more junk food to your diet, go for it. Just be aware you probably won't be giving your body all that it needs to function properly.
The Cookie Monster was the first against the wall when the Revolution came. They sent him to a reeducation camp and made him do propaganda films.
Ahh, so THAT'S why he stopped with the cookies! I always wondered about that.0 -
UltimateEscape wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
You can't maintain weight on a deficit if you eat cake, cookies, and white bread. If this was the case, then we could simply send these foods to places where people were starving and fix the problem.
If you are in a deficit, you will lose weight -- even if cake is part of what you are eating.0 -
The humour in my post was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, so thank you for seeing that. Anyone who would think I was seriously intending to impart that people who don't eat junk food are insane, is just desperately trying to flame bait. Or is completely devoid of a sense of humour.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).
Or both.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »UltimateEscape wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
You can't maintain weight on a deficit if you eat cake, cookies, and white bread. If this was the case, then we could simply send these foods to places where people were starving and fix the problem.
If you are in a deficit, you will lose weight -- even if cake is part of what you are eating.
Actually you can if you keep the amount under the calorie limit you have. However, if that's all you eat, you will eventually start suffering from malnutrition.0 -
Moderation is great. I support it 100%.
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.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.
It's when people say that everyone has to include junk food OR ELSE that it gets ridiculous. It's always ORE ELSE:
You will fail.
You will binge
You will be unhappy
You will be insane...
...and none of it is true for everyone.
If a person feels that they will fail, binge, be unhappy or insane, then they should OF COURSE include whatever food food prevents those behaviors or unpleasant feelings. But that stuff is not a foregone conclusion for everyone.
True. I couldn't cut out junk food because then I would backslide quickly! Being able to have junk food, even if it's smaller amounts, is much more emotionally satisfying to me. But there are people that believe they have to cut out all junk food, and if it works for them, that's great. I think it depends on your relationship with food and how you view it as to whether or not you can work it into your diet or you need to cut it out completely, even if temporarily. If you want to do that, that's fine, it's just that you don't HAVE to. There are ways to work in junk food if you really want it, that's what a lot of people don't understand.
I agree with this. There's a weird false dichotomy where when someone says a person doesn't have to give up treats, it gets reinterpreted as saying a person must eat treats. Having done strict elimination plans before, I know what ultimately led me to fall off. Many other people here did, too. That's valuable experience that can help someone who is just starting down that road with a head full of fad diet rules, I wish a resource like MFP had been available when I first started down that path.
Having a plan that allows for flexibility isn't the only way, but it's one of the most versatile tools in the weight loss toolbox.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »UltimateEscape wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
You can't maintain weight on a deficit if you eat cake, cookies, and white bread. If this was the case, then we could simply send these foods to places where people were starving and fix the problem.
If you are in a deficit, you will lose weight -- even if cake is part of what you are eating.
Actually you can if you keep the amount under the calorie limit you have. However, if that's all you eat, you will eventually start suffering from malnutrition.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that if you are in a deficit, you will lose weight. I'm not discussing malnutrition -- that's a whole different ball game.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Isn't the ultimate goal to be HEALTHY though? Or am I the only one who thinks like that? I'm all for having the occasional treat but I'm not going to fill up my daily calories with junk. But that's just me.
To answer your questions...no...you are not the only one. Many of us strive for a well balanced diet which allows for a "dessert" on oaccasion.
0 -
So, in case anyone was wondering, that's slightly more than 4.04 pounds of raw broccoli. ~1770.05 grams, to be precise. I would die.0
-
UltimateEscape wrote: »I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
Many people believe that if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day, you’ll lose weight, and if you eat the same number of calories that you’ll burn, you’ll maintain a healthy weight. This plan works for many people, but not all.
If you’re counting calories, it’s important to think about what you’re eating. Say Jane eats 1,200 calories a day of cake, cookies and white bread. She’s probably not going to lose any weight. Betty eats 1,200 calories a day of fresh vegetables and fruit and lean protein. She’s probably going to lose some weight and get a lot more nutrients from her food. Counting calories is only part of the weight loss equation.
And counting calories is only one way to lose weight. Because the hormone insulin plays a major role in how your body uses and stores fat, some research suggests that eating foods that keep insulin levels steady throughout the day — lean meat and fish, poultry, vegetables, and fruit — rather than foods like sugar, candy, white bread and crackers — can help you maintain a healthy weight.""
Source:
Do you need to count calories?
http://www.breastcancer.org/tips/nutrition/healthy_eat/plan
There is a whole lotta nope in this one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions