I called oatmeal cookies unhealthy and I got blasted - why?
Options
Replies
-
Again yes, certain foods are nutrient dense and certain foods are calorie dense. Those are the distinctions. Not healthy or unhealthy...WorkInProgress909 wrote: »My point is there is a difference between these foods and it should be ok to acknowledge it.0 -
The problem is the poster is probably on a lower calorie diet and has little room for treats...
Actually what we are saying, is if you eat a well balanced meal, hit your nutrient goals (macro and micros) and have room for a 255 calorie cookie, you could.WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
I love cherries as well and they require self control too, but at least you are getting more nutrients out of them than a snack of cookies. Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent. This conversation is ridiculous. Yes it is all about your diet but your diet consists of food that are healthy and unhealthy.
Look at my diary and you will see a 250 calorie Klondike almost night.
Oh without a doubt. But she could have one serving of ice cream which is around 160 calories or a couple of oreos. I only get a high calorie treat because I am pretty active and male.
0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
I love cherries as well and they require self control too, but at least you are getting more nutrients out of them than a snack of cookies. Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent. This conversation is ridiculous. Yes it is all about your diet but your diet consists of food that are healthy and unhealthy.
You keep missing the part where we discuss the nutritional profile of each, especially within the context of the entire diet. Say I'm know I'm having a lot of veggies at dinner (for example, we make an really awesome chicken veggie stir fry ... mmmm veggies). Then bread and butter may make more sense for lunch than a salad. Or if I'm in a hurry in the morning and don't have time for traditional oatmeal. A couple of cookies made with raisins may suit my needs much better than a bar of some sort.
Of course, cookies for breakfast, bread & butter for lunch, and fast food for dinner on a regular basis won't promote good health. But then, that's the overall diet, not each food individually, that is problematic.
0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »No I get it, you are saying no food should be labelled bad because it is really about the diet as a whole, portions, total calories etc. And you are saying it is okay to have these foods. Which I totally agree with but I still think they need a label. Its just annoying on MFP because I have posted something previously also and got a bunch of rude comments about how there is no such thing as clean food or unhealthy food or whatever. I just think realistically different food groups need different labels.
Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...Calorie dense and nutrient dense...
0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »No I get it, you are saying no food should be labelled bad because it is really about the diet as a whole, portions, total calories etc. And you are saying it is okay to have these foods. Which I totally agree with but I still think they need a label. Its just annoying on MFP because I have posted something previously also and got a bunch of rude comments about how there is no such thing as clean food or unhealthy food or whatever. I just think realistically different food groups need different labels.
Personally, I would label foods as nutrient dense or not nutrient dense.0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »Eating hepatitis from the jar is unhealthy.
Non of the items mentioned (barring medical conditions or allergies) are detrimental to health.
Of course too much of the items mentioned is detrimental to health, just as too much of *anything* is.
Too much of celery and Broccoli would not be detrimental for anyone. A diet of regularly eating cookies would cause a difference in your health or weight. So there is a difference between these 2 food groups, they are not the same and it should be OK to acknowledge that.
Actually, if you ate them to exclusion of all other foods, it would be very unhealthy. So the point at which a food becomes unhealthy may differ, but again it's the extraneous factor and not the food itself that is unhealthy.
Brocolli and celery is just 2 examples, no one is going to eat them exclusively. There's a lot of vegetables, grains, meat that can go in your diet and it would be hard to overeat. At some point I can no longer have anymore chicken.. But cookies you can still eat without feeling too full but the total calories you ate will be too high compared to your salad and chicken that made you feel full.
But that's where this is getting confused. No one has ever said to eat nothing but cookies, or broccoli or celery. It's about fitting it in with what else you eat, therefore the food, in a vacuum, is not unhealthy, but the way you fit it into your daily and weekly goals may be.
My point wasn't that someone could be eating only cookies or only broccoli. My point is that one is high in calories even if you eat a small amount and might make you feel hungry later vs one that is low in calories you can eat more and it will make you feel full. If I add a cookie to my food diary I will end up feeling hungry later but those calories will be already used up and I won't be able to eat something else. You can eat a big portion of fruit and it will only be like 60 calories and make you full and healthy, meanwhile your small cookie is 100^ calories. How would you teach this to a child who hasn't developed self control yet .. If a child thinks both foods are healthy? You would have to differentiate between the 2 somehow and explain one is better than the other.
Yes, as I suggested in response to your other post you seem to be confusing calorie dense and unhealthy.
How I would explain it to anyone (and children aren't the audience on MFP, but I was able to grasp this as a child so I do not think it's that difficult) is that some foods are more calorie dense than others and some are more nutrient dense than others and that to have an overall healthy diet we need to consider a few things:
(1) that it have appropriate calories for one's goals (neither too high NOR too low);
(2) that it be balanced -- in other words, that it have enough in the various micro and macronutrients for your goals.
Whether a particular food adds to the overall health of the diet depends on what one needs given the above considerations.
Broccoli will likely further one's goals (if one is the average person in the US) more often than an oatmeal cookie, but it really depends. (The oatmeal cookie could have more fiber, it will have more fat, relevant if the person is doing some juicing thing, it obviously has more calories which are not inherently bad, etc.).
More significantly, an absolutely okay goal is to have a diet that is enjoyable and satisfying and if someone finds that an oatmeal cookie furthers this goal and is not inconsistent with any others, I don't see how it's unhealthy. It's not identical to broccoli (and no one has ever said it is) and IMO it's neither healthy nor unhealthy in itself. It's neutral.
And like others I do regularly eat some food more for its taste than its micronutrient content (after getting plenty of food which I enjoy for both). I don't see anything wrong with this. It still contributes calories I need for my day (at the moment my deficit is as high as I think is appropriate at my current weight), and my diet is overall very healthy. Also, I am not hungry -- I find the claim that eating one cookie will make you hungry for the day awfully odd, if one is otherwise eating sensibly and at a reasonable calorie level.
I'm not against cookies or desserts, I did not ban these out of my life. I am ok with eating 1 or 2 or whatever I want as long as it fits in with my goal. My point is there is a difference between these foods and it should be ok to acknowledge it. You must have been a smart 5 year old to understand that whole explanation. You would have to somehow explain to a child one is more healthier than the other and you can't have too much of the cookie because it has a lot of sugar and you will be too full to eat other healthy food. Which means there is a difference between the 2 and in order to form self
Control when you get older you need to be able to differentiate between these at any age.
There's a difference between an avocado and a piece of celery as well. Should the avocado be deemed unhealthy because it's calorie dense?
No. I am pretty sure an avocado doesn't make you crave another one immediately after finishing it. I am sure everyone has experienced cravings for another cookie/dessert and has to practice self control in order to not act on it.
I am sure it depends on the person re the avocado. I usually eat only half an avocado because of calories, and most of the time I'd totally be up for finishing it.
Similarly, I eat half a cup of ice cream after dinner most nights. Sure, I could probably manage a full cup and enjoy it (I don't have any desire to gorge myself on it, or eat more than that, typically), but it doesn't take tremendous willpower to leave it at the half cup, especially now I'm in the habit of eating sensible serving sizes and understand how much I'm eating. It certainly doesn't cause me to be hungry (I just finished dinner!) or to crave more in that context.
Perhaps you should stop projecting your own issues onto everyone else?0 -
Same here. Which is why exercise is so vital to a successful program.
The problem is the poster is probably on a lower calorie diet and has little room for treats...
Actually what we are saying, is if you eat a well balanced meal, hit your nutrient goals (macro and micros) and have room for a 255 calorie cookie, you could.WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
I love cherries as well and they require self control too, but at least you are getting more nutrients out of them than a snack of cookies. Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent. This conversation is ridiculous. Yes it is all about your diet but your diet consists of food that are healthy and unhealthy.
Look at my diary and you will see a 250 calorie Klondike almost night.
Oh without a doubt. But she could have one serving of ice cream which is around 160 calories or a couple of oreos. I only get a high calorie treat because I am pretty active and male.
0 -
So close, and yet so far.WorkInProgress909 wrote: »No I get it, you are saying no food should be labelled bad because it is really about the diet as a whole, portions, total calories etc. And you are saying it is okay to have these foods. Which I totally agree with but I still think they need a label. Its just annoying on MFP because I have posted something previously also and got a bunch of rude comments about how there is no such thing as clean food or unhealthy food or whatever. I just think realistically different food groups need different labels.
0 -
You don't get extra credit for extra "healthy foods" if you have met your requirement...WorkInProgress909 wrote: »
The problem is the poster is probably on a lower calorie diet and has little room for treats...
Actually what we are saying, is if you eat a well balanced meal, hit your nutrient goals (macro and micros) and have room for a 255 calorie cookie, you could.WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
I love cherries as well and they require self control too, but at least you are getting more nutrients out of them than a snack of cookies. Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent. This conversation is ridiculous. Yes it is all about your diet but your diet consists of food that are healthy and unhealthy.
Look at my diary and you will see a 250 calorie Klondike almost night.
Oh without a doubt. But she could have one serving of ice cream which is around 160 calories or a couple of oreos. I only get a high calorie treat because I am pretty active and male.
I have 2100 calorie goal on days with high cardio exercising. I still rather make room for other "healthy foods" than ice cream unless I am really craving it and haven't had it in a while.
0 -
Maybe (at least this was the case for me) you would crave it less if you fit in a serving more ofter...WorkInProgress909 wrote: »
The problem is the poster is probably on a lower calorie diet and has little room for treats...
Actually what we are saying, is if you eat a well balanced meal, hit your nutrient goals (macro and micros) and have room for a 255 calorie cookie, you could.WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
I love cherries as well and they require self control too, but at least you are getting more nutrients out of them than a snack of cookies. Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent. This conversation is ridiculous. Yes it is all about your diet but your diet consists of food that are healthy and unhealthy.
Look at my diary and you will see a 250 calorie Klondike almost night.
Oh without a doubt. But she could have one serving of ice cream which is around 160 calories or a couple of oreos. I only get a high calorie treat because I am pretty active and male.
I have 2100 calorie goal on days with high cardio exercising. I still rather make room for other "healthy foods" than ice cream unless I am really craving it and haven't had it in a while.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »esmesqualor wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MFP has a... thing about this. I have never seen a diet and fitness site like this before. People get criticized for avoiding excess sugar, junk food, highly processed items, etc. I may very occasionally permit myself such an item, but I'm not going to pretend it's *healthy* AKA high in nutrients, because it isn't! Folks will equate the "processing" of placing fruit or vegetables in a bag with the processing of mashing things to a pulp, adding a ton of preservatives, artificial flavors and salt, and frying it. To avoid criticism, the only thing to do is to eat healthy for your own sake but never mention it anywhere but on your own home page. *smh*
You're right. It's mind-boggling.
I agree, it's idiotic. Foods may not necessarily be Unhealthy (like oatmeal cookies in moderation) but they are certainly not healthy! Many people when attempting to lose weight (and other times) would like to make all of the calories that go in to their bodies actually nutritious. I think this is a great goal! Why put "empty" calories in to one's body when it can be avoided. Not to say that there should't be room for some treats now and then, just don't fool yourself in to thinking you are doing something good for yourself!
Because health is a lot more than what you put in your body. And sometimes the enjoyment of eating a cookie or ice cream goes a long way for mental health. Daily Klondikes have kept me in the game for a long time. When i cut them all out, while going paleo, i binged. So let me ask you what is more healthy. .. a diet that is 90% nutrient dense and 10% personal enjoyment or a diet where i binge?
So my "idotic" diet has been my success. And i know its success because all my numbers improve and i keep hitting PRs every lifting session.
Sure, I have the occasional cookie or ice cream myself. However, the comment we were responding to was about criticizing the desire to reduce excess sugar and pretending junk food is nutritionally healthy. Good for mental health is another issue
MFP has a... thing about this. I have never seen a diet and fitness site like this before. People get criticized for avoiding excess sugar, junk food, highly processed items, etc. I may very occasionally permit myself such an item, but I'm not going to pretend it's *healthy* AKA high in nutrients, because it isn't! Folks will equate the "processing" of placing fruit or vegetables in a bag with the processing of mashing things to a pulp, adding a ton of preservatives, artificial flavors and salt, and frying it. To avoid criticism, the only thing to do is to eat healthy for your own sake but never mention it anywhere but on your own home page. *smh*
No, the specific question that was asked and that Psulemon was responding to was:
"Why put "empty" calories in to one's body when it can be avoided."0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »
I have 2100 calorie goal on days with high cardio exercising. I still rather make room for other "healthy foods" than ice cream unless I am really craving it and haven't had it in a while.
And that is fine. We all have to do whats best for ourselves. For me, I find balance between health and enjoyment because life is way to short to not enjoy foods you love because they aren't as nutrient dense.
0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
If you think that is what people are saying then you aren't comprehending what people are typing.
No I get it, you are saying no food should be labelled bad because it is really about the diet as a whole, portions, total calories etc.
Yes, but your replacements would make your diet as a whole unbalanced as far as macros. Everyone (as far as I can tell) who says "nothing is unhealthy" stipulates that you still need to hit your macros.
You can't replace a salad + chicken with equal calories of bread and butter and expect to hit the same macros at the end of the day. I know that if I completely cut protein out of my lunch, I wouldn't be able to hit my protein macro.
I could however replace my salad + chicken with a cheeseburger and then adjust my dinner accordingly and still hit my macros.
It's about balance. Your argument is a strawman.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
If you think that is what people are saying then you aren't comprehending what people are typing.
No I get it, you are saying no food should be labelled bad because it is really about the diet as a whole, portions, total calories etc.
Yes, but your replacements would make your diet as a whole unbalanced as far as macros. Everyone (as far as I can tell) who says "nothing is unhealthy" stipulates that you still need to hit your macros.
You can't replace a salad + chicken with equal calories of bread and butter and expect to hit the same macros at the end of the day. I know that if I completely cut protein out of my lunch, I wouldn't be able to hit my protein macro.
I could however replace my salad + chicken with a cheeseburger and then adjust my dinner accordingly and still hit my macros.
It's about balance. Your argument is a strawman.
There it is!!!!
0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »No I get it, you are saying no food should be labelled bad because it is really about the diet as a whole, portions, total calories etc. And you are saying it is okay to have these foods. Which I totally agree with but I still think they need a label. Its just annoying on MFP because I have posted something previously also and got a bunch of rude comments about how there is no such thing as clean food or unhealthy food or whatever. I just think realistically different food groups need different labels.
My pediatrician actually said pretty much the bolded part. Yes, there is a difference between soda and milk, yes there is a difference between broccoli and cookies. But labeling a food bad, or forbidding it, can increase the desire for kids ("this is bad/forbidden? I wonder why. I must find out what it is all about").
Does that mean I let my kids drink all the soda they want? No, I teach them that one is plenty and leave room for other things. I also don't let my kids drink all the milk they want (1-2 glasses a day, plus the cheese and yogurt and such, is sufficient, more than that begins replacing other needed foods). And, I do have to teach them to moderate the broccoli, too! (Yeah, I'm lucky that way). Otherwise, my boys would fill up on nothing but steamed broccoli and miss out on the protein of the meat ... which teenage boys desperately need!
Labeling foods? Okay: Fruits, vegetables, protein, sweets, nutrient-dense, calorie-dense, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Labeling foods "bad" or "unhealthy" ... can become problematic!!0 -
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories.
Who said this? Please quote. You seem to be having a really hard time comprehending pretty simple and clear posts. Why do you think that is?And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
Does your bread and butter have the same macro and micronutrients as the chicken and salad? Mine does not, but maybe yours is special. Does it have the same effect on YOU? Do you enjoy it as much? If all of those are true, sure, they are interchangeable. If not, they aren't. Which is why in some cases you might reasonably choose bread and butter (not me, I'm not that into bread and butter as a meal/snack) and in other cases you would choose something else.Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent.
No one has said that. Please stop making things up.0 -
A protein bar and a cookie are a better comparison by their nutritional profiles. One cannot label one as healthy and the other not.0
-
WorkInProgress909 wrote: »
Maybe (at least this was the case for me) you would crave it less if you fit in a serving more ofter...WorkInProgress909 wrote: »
The problem is the poster is probably on a lower calorie diet and has little room for treats...
Actually what we are saying, is if you eat a well balanced meal, hit your nutrient goals (macro and micros) and have room for a 255 calorie cookie, you could.WorkInProgress909 wrote: »By the way I eat oatmeal every morning (255 calories of it) based on what you are all saying I should just replace it with oatmeal cookies as long as it fits the 255 calories. And sometimes the salads with chicken for lunch that I have I should replace it with bread and butter which will have the same calories.
I love cherries as well and they require self control too, but at least you are getting more nutrients out of them than a snack of cookies. Or will you all argue that the nutrients from both are equivalent. This conversation is ridiculous. Yes it is all about your diet but your diet consists of food that are healthy and unhealthy.
Look at my diary and you will see a 250 calorie Klondike almost night.
Oh without a doubt. But she could have one serving of ice cream which is around 160 calories or a couple of oreos. I only get a high calorie treat because I am pretty active and male.
I have 2100 calorie goal on days with high cardio exercising. I still rather make room for other "healthy foods" than ice cream unless I am really craving it and haven't had it in a while.
So I need to feed myself ice cream more often when I have no craving for it so that I can be happy. Got it
You keep missing the point. Life is too short not to have treats once in a while. Eating healthy and only eating more "healthy" doesn't make you more healthy. Your body can only absorb so much "healthy".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions