I called oatmeal cookies unhealthy and I got blasted - why?
Options
Replies
-
I found a recipe for oatmeal protein banana cookies....total calories <700 for all! woot. Have to make these soon.
Oatmeal Banana Protein Cookie
Ingredients
2 overripe bananas
1 cup of oatmeal
1/8 tsp of sea salt
1 tsp cinnamon
Dash of baking powder
1 scoop Muscle Milk Vanilla Creme [or any vanilla protein powder]
Directions
1. Preheat oven to 350 F.
2. Lightly spray a cookie sheet with olive or coconut oil. Evenly distribute the spray with
a napkin or paper towel.
3. In a large bowl, mash bananas until creamy. Add oats, protein, cinnamon, salt, baking
powder, and any additional ingredients of your choice. Mix well.
4. Plop mounded spoonfuls of the mixture onto cookie sheet. Sprinkle with almond
slivers.
5. Bake for 15 minutes.
6. Eat and enjoy!
Nutrition Facts
Calories: 673
Fat: 11 g
Carbs: 121 g
Protein: 29 g
Someone had to say it.
Yuck.
But hey, at least you won't be likely to binge on those...I'm pretty sure the "everything in moderation crowd" frequently (not always) advocates for hitting your macro goals and eating nutrient dense foods while enjoying your treats. So no one is suggesting "stuffing your face with junk food" or eating cookies for dinner so you have no room to meet your other nutrients. To those criticizing this point of view - at least characterize it correctly. Moderation posters generally show up in threads where someone is trying to eliminate a certain food because they think they need to just to let them know they have another option: moderation. That's exactly what happened in this original thread (why OP felt the need to start a new thread just to respond to her other thread is beyond me). OP wanted to binge eat on cookies but realized that calorie free oatmeal cookies don't necessarily exist. Posters were trying to let OP know that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about cookies (or cake or pie or ice cream) if eaten in moderation. Moderation =/= stuffing your face or missing out on important micro and macro nutrients. And I personally have never seen anyone advocate for that type of diet here (don't let the low post count fool you; long time lurker here). Many times a moderation advocate will post a simple "CICO, everything in moderation" response without much context. It would be possible for an OP in that scenario to get the wrong idea about what moderation means. But, jesus christ, if a person cannot utilize the giant search feature at the top of the community page to find the answer to their question that was posted just ten minutes ago, they don't deserve context.
Ok so yeah, I don't know why people always assume that just because we eat cookies and that we say that there's nothing wrong with eating cookies, we stuff our face with them.
But just because there's nothing wrong with eating a couple cookies in a day doesn't make cookies a healthy food. I don't understand why the 'moderation crowd' insists on the whole 'nothing is unhealthy' thing. It's just silly. Of course some foods are not healthy. Sure, it's not unhealthy to just eat them in moderation, but coming to every single thread telling people that there's nothing unhealthy about cookies is just dumb.
Tbh, I'm not sure what would make cookies an inherently unhealthy food. I do understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be purposefully argumentative. I just think the healthiness of your diet is determined by, well, your overall diet. Zucchini is a "healthy" food to most people and provides quite a few nutrients. But if you eat only zucchini, your overall diet is not healthy. You wouldn't be getting all the nutrients that you need and your body would suffer. I can't think of any single food that is inherently "healthy" - because I'm not sure if I quite know what that would mean. You have to fill your diet with foods that help you meet both macro and micro nutrient goals and that help to fuel your body for all your activity. If you are eating foods in such a way that it adds up to a healthy overall diet, then how can a couple of cookies in context be unhealthy? What about cookies makes them inherently unhealthy? Again, I don't think the lack of micro/macro nutrients can be the culprit, because zucchini also lacks a lot of nutrients that we need.
That's the thing though... the overall healthiness of a diet is a different thing. You can have an overall healthy diet while still eating some unhealthy things.
It just really bugs me when people jump at posters' throats about 'what's unhealthy about x food' when x food has like 200+ calories a serving and doesn't really have much in term of nutrients (talking about micros, not macros). Unless people are really obtuse on purpose, everyone knows that fruit is healthier than a cookie (it has vitamins, fiber, etc). Heck nuts might have close to 200 calories a serving but they are full of healthy fats.. a cookie? not so much. And it won't fill you up one bit for the calories either.
For 200 calories of zucchini you get over 100% of Vitamin C, 20% Iron, 50% vitamin A, 20% calcium, 14g of fiber...
200 calories of Oreos? 12% Iron. That's it.
So there's your answer - the difference is in the micros (and I guess in the quality of fats to an extent).0 -
Did I say I agree or disagree with anything to do with healthy or unhealthy foods? No, so dont make assumptions. All I did was answer a simple question and now I'm the one who is getting blasted here. For some, ganging up on one person is considered as fun. My post wasnt for you judge and jury - it was for Charon the OP.
Disagreeing or correcting misinformation =/= getting blasted. You are probably adding tone while you are reading which makes it seem like someone is attacking you.
In the 6years + I have been on this forum, no one has told someone to have an entire diet made up of cookies, ice cream or anything else. If you look at the context of what is being said, is we suggesting addressing your macronutrient and micronutreint goals first. And at the end of the day, if you arent' hungry and have room for a treat (because life is about enjoyment), then add one. I have a klondike every day, but I also ensure I hit my protein goals and ensure my lifting sessions do no suffer. On days where I have more high calorie "junk" food in the morning (such as a high calorie muffin) and don't have room to fit in a Klondike, I just take a pass on it.
Overall, health is so much more than how much you weigh. Its exercise, genetics, and personal enjoyment. So if having a cookie (which is my rare), a piece of candy (more frequent), or some ice cream, keeps me on track and in the mental game, then I am all for it.
0 -
I found a recipe for oatmeal protein banana cookies....total calories <700 for all! woot. Have to make these soon.
Oatmeal Banana Protein Cookie
Ingredients
2 overripe bananas
1 cup of oatmeal
1/8 tsp of sea salt
1 tsp cinnamon
Dash of baking powder
1 scoop Muscle Milk Vanilla Creme [or any vanilla protein powder]
Directions
1. Preheat oven to 350 F.
2. Lightly spray a cookie sheet with olive or coconut oil. Evenly distribute the spray with
a napkin or paper towel.
3. In a large bowl, mash bananas until creamy. Add oats, protein, cinnamon, salt, baking
powder, and any additional ingredients of your choice. Mix well.
4. Plop mounded spoonfuls of the mixture onto cookie sheet. Sprinkle with almond
slivers.
5. Bake for 15 minutes.
6. Eat and enjoy!
Nutrition Facts
Calories: 673
Fat: 11 g
Carbs: 121 g
Protein: 29 g
Someone had to say it.
Yuck.
But hey, at least you won't be likely to binge on those...I'm pretty sure the "everything in moderation crowd" frequently (not always) advocates for hitting your macro goals and eating nutrient dense foods while enjoying your treats. So no one is suggesting "stuffing your face with junk food" or eating cookies for dinner so you have no room to meet your other nutrients. To those criticizing this point of view - at least characterize it correctly. Moderation posters generally show up in threads where someone is trying to eliminate a certain food because they think they need to just to let them know they have another option: moderation. That's exactly what happened in this original thread (why OP felt the need to start a new thread just to respond to her other thread is beyond me). OP wanted to binge eat on cookies but realized that calorie free oatmeal cookies don't necessarily exist. Posters were trying to let OP know that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about cookies (or cake or pie or ice cream) if eaten in moderation. Moderation =/= stuffing your face or missing out on important micro and macro nutrients. And I personally have never seen anyone advocate for that type of diet here (don't let the low post count fool you; long time lurker here). Many times a moderation advocate will post a simple "CICO, everything in moderation" response without much context. It would be possible for an OP in that scenario to get the wrong idea about what moderation means. But, jesus christ, if a person cannot utilize the giant search feature at the top of the community page to find the answer to their question that was posted just ten minutes ago, they don't deserve context.
Ok so yeah, I don't know why people always assume that just because we eat cookies and that we say that there's nothing wrong with eating cookies, we stuff our face with them.
But just because there's nothing wrong with eating a couple cookies in a day doesn't make cookies a healthy food. I don't understand why the 'moderation crowd' insists on the whole 'nothing is unhealthy' thing. It's just silly. Of course some foods are not healthy. Sure, it's not unhealthy to just eat them in moderation, but coming to every single thread telling people that there's nothing unhealthy about cookies is just dumb.
Tbh, I'm not sure what would make cookies an inherently unhealthy food. I do understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be purposefully argumentative. I just think the healthiness of your diet is determined by, well, your overall diet. Zucchini is a "healthy" food to most people and provides quite a few nutrients. But if you eat only zucchini, your overall diet is not healthy. You wouldn't be getting all the nutrients that you need and your body would suffer. I can't think of any single food that is inherently "healthy" - because I'm not sure if I quite know what that would mean. You have to fill your diet with foods that help you meet both macro and micro nutrient goals and that help to fuel your body for all your activity. If you are eating foods in such a way that it adds up to a healthy overall diet, then how can a couple of cookies in context be unhealthy? What about cookies makes them inherently unhealthy? Again, I don't think the lack of micro/macro nutrients can be the culprit, because zucchini also lacks a lot of nutrients that we need.
That's the thing though... the overall healthiness of a diet is a different thing. You can have an overall healthy diet while still eating some unhealthy things.
It just really bugs me when people jump at posters' throats about 'what's unhealthy about x food' when x food has like 200+ calories a serving and doesn't really have much in term of nutrients (talking about micros, not macros). Unless people are really obtuse on purpose, everyone knows that fruit is healthier than a cookie (it has vitamins, fiber, etc). Heck nuts might have close to 200 calories a serving but they are full of healthy fats.. a cookie? not so much. And it won't fill you up one bit for the calories either.
For 200 calories of zucchini you get over 100% of Vitamin C, 20% Iron, 50% vitamin A, 20% calcium, 14g of fiber...
200 calories of Oreos? 12% Iron. That's it.
So there's your answer - the difference is in the micros (and I guess in the quality of fats to an extent).
So the healthiness of a food would be determined by how much bang for your buck you get in regards to nutrients vs calories. That makes sense. I'm not sure if I agree completely, but if you're going to determine the healthiness of a food, that's a good way to measure.
It may just be semantics, too (as far as our conversation goes). Because I do agree with you that a few cookies thrown into an otherwise nutrient-rich diet are completely fine. If I'm low on protein for the day and have a few hundred calories left, I'm not going to eat a couple Oreos or some ice cream - but I will if my nutrient goals are looking good for the day. My aversion to assigning the healthy/unhealthy label to specific foods may have more to do with my personal history with food than a disagreement with the actual concept.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »emiliebecause wrote: »
I can't say it is a general position but it is one that comes across in the way some of the more prolific posters express themselves on the topic. For example, abruptly stating "CICO" without much context, to a newer poster who uses the word 'unhealthy' to describe food is going to come across as if nutrition doesn't matter. It's not a huge leap to make.lemurcat12 wrote: »emiliebecause 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*
Just to this post but I agree. It's a bit overdone. I mean I get it CICO CICO CICO however it is normal and healthy to look at what we are consuming and consider things like our arteries when making choices. I noticed it a lot from one poster in particular and then saw later that his caloric intake is supposed to be 4000/day so...um...people have different outlooks, experiences, and goals.
I consider nutrition and health when making choices. I don't see how the general position at MFP is against doing that at all. That people don't think all foods with butter are evil and should be avoided doesn't mean they think food choice doesn't matter, you know.
She does have a point. Just visit any of the sugar, junk food or clean eating threads..
Many of which turned into trainwrecks and were zapped, and so are not referable.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »It's just a teensy bit dramatic to say that the responses in that thread "blasted" you. I'm still looking for evidence of that. Maybe the abusive posts were deleted...
In the meantime, putting foods like oatmeal cookies into "good"/"bad" boxes within the context of a balanced diet doesn't make sense to me. But no cookie-type item, regardless of whether it's made like a traditional oatmeal cookie, or the unspeakable aberrations made with bananas, is something that would be a reasonable snack item for a person who identifies as a volume eater.
As another poster pointed out, oatmeal cookie recipes and the question of how to deal with snacks that may be appropriate for volume eaters are two different things. Maybe look for oatmeal recipes that emphasize savory rather than sweet?
I shudder at the thought of desecrating a oatmeal cookie with bananas, but since the thread already was established with an overload of drama, I shall keep my utter horror to myself. I make mine with a lot of brown sugar, butter, and vanilla..and occasionally include coconut flakes instead of raisins (so moist!) and bake them with a tablespoon of apricot preserves in the center. But they're not the kind of thing I'd keep handy as a regular snack.
If you wrote a blog, I'd subscribe
Aw! Thank you (I think). I'd never be a good blogger, though, because I'd just fill it with youtubes of cats trying to fit into boxes, off-color jokes, and cookie recipes.
Yes, that was a compliment
It's a tribute to your writing skills that I very much enjoy reading you, despite often disagreeing with you
0 -
An oatmeal cookie has fewer calories and fewer ingredients than a Quest protein bar. Just sayin'.
OP, if you are a volume eater, then find those low calorie snacks that fill you up. Water comes to mind. And air. This is how you do air. You eat popcorn undressed or puffed wheat. It will fill you up without adding many calories.
Water can be dressed as tea or any sort of infusion.
Leafy greens are good because they take up a lot of volume without adding a lot of calories.
So if you fill up half your plate with leafy greens with more veggies on top, have a lovely bit of meat the size of the palm of your hand, a little carb like roasted butternut squash on the final quarter of your plate, a cup of tea, and you can easily slip one oatmeal cookie in for dessert.0 -
I found a recipe for oatmeal protein banana cookies....total calories <700 for all! woot. Have to make these soon.
Oatmeal Banana Protein Cookie
Ingredients
2 overripe bananas
1 cup of oatmeal
1/8 tsp of sea salt
1 tsp cinnamon
Dash of baking powder
1 scoop Muscle Milk Vanilla Creme [or any vanilla protein powder]
Directions
1. Preheat oven to 350 F.
2. Lightly spray a cookie sheet with olive or coconut oil. Evenly distribute the spray with
a napkin or paper towel.
3. In a large bowl, mash bananas until creamy. Add oats, protein, cinnamon, salt, baking
powder, and any additional ingredients of your choice. Mix well.
4. Plop mounded spoonfuls of the mixture onto cookie sheet. Sprinkle with almond
slivers.
5. Bake for 15 minutes.
6. Eat and enjoy!
Nutrition Facts
Calories: 673
Fat: 11 g
Carbs: 121 g
Protein: 29 g
Someone had to say it.
Yuck.
But hey, at least you won't be likely to binge on those...I'm pretty sure the "everything in moderation crowd" frequently (not always) advocates for hitting your macro goals and eating nutrient dense foods while enjoying your treats. So no one is suggesting "stuffing your face with junk food" or eating cookies for dinner so you have no room to meet your other nutrients. To those criticizing this point of view - at least characterize it correctly. Moderation posters generally show up in threads where someone is trying to eliminate a certain food because they think they need to just to let them know they have another option: moderation. That's exactly what happened in this original thread (why OP felt the need to start a new thread just to respond to her other thread is beyond me). OP wanted to binge eat on cookies but realized that calorie free oatmeal cookies don't necessarily exist. Posters were trying to let OP know that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about cookies (or cake or pie or ice cream) if eaten in moderation. Moderation =/= stuffing your face or missing out on important micro and macro nutrients. And I personally have never seen anyone advocate for that type of diet here (don't let the low post count fool you; long time lurker here). Many times a moderation advocate will post a simple "CICO, everything in moderation" response without much context. It would be possible for an OP in that scenario to get the wrong idea about what moderation means. But, jesus christ, if a person cannot utilize the giant search feature at the top of the community page to find the answer to their question that was posted just ten minutes ago, they don't deserve context.
Ok so yeah, I don't know why people always assume that just because we eat cookies and that we say that there's nothing wrong with eating cookies, we stuff our face with them.
But just because there's nothing wrong with eating a couple cookies in a day doesn't make cookies a healthy food. I don't understand why the 'moderation crowd' insists on the whole 'nothing is unhealthy' thing. It's just silly. Of course some foods are not healthy. Sure, it's not unhealthy to just eat them in moderation, but coming to every single thread telling people that there's nothing unhealthy about cookies is just dumb.
Tbh, I'm not sure what would make cookies an inherently unhealthy food. I do understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be purposefully argumentative. I just think the healthiness of your diet is determined by, well, your overall diet. Zucchini is a "healthy" food to most people and provides quite a few nutrients. But if you eat only zucchini, your overall diet is not healthy. You wouldn't be getting all the nutrients that you need and your body would suffer. I can't think of any single food that is inherently "healthy" - because I'm not sure if I quite know what that would mean. You have to fill your diet with foods that help you meet both macro and micro nutrient goals and that help to fuel your body for all your activity. If you are eating foods in such a way that it adds up to a healthy overall diet, then how can a couple of cookies in context be unhealthy? What about cookies makes them inherently unhealthy? Again, I don't think the lack of micro/macro nutrients can be the culprit, because zucchini also lacks a lot of nutrients that we need.
That's the thing though... the overall healthiness of a diet is a different thing. You can have an overall healthy diet while still eating some unhealthy things.
It just really bugs me when people jump at posters' throats about 'what's unhealthy about x food' when x food has like 200+ calories a serving and doesn't really have much in term of nutrients (talking about micros, not macros). Unless people are really obtuse on purpose, everyone knows that fruit is healthier than a cookie (it has vitamins, fiber, etc). Heck nuts might have close to 200 calories a serving but they are full of healthy fats.. a cookie? not so much. And it won't fill you up one bit for the calories either.
For 200 calories of zucchini you get over 100% of Vitamin C, 20% Iron, 50% vitamin A, 20% calcium, 14g of fiber...
200 calories of Oreos? 12% Iron. That's it.
So there's your answer - the difference is in the micros (and I guess in the quality of fats to an extent).
So I'm not really arguing, but just asking a question to make a point, but what if someone just needs some fast acting energy to help complete some type of physical activity? Nutrients aside as those are unnecessary...the only thing needed is fast acting energy...then which is healthy? The zucchini which will not provide the fast acting energy or the cookie that will?0 -
I also don't find that people say all food is healthy or that there isn't unhealthy food.
I do say no food is bad, nor good. it is fuel. it is up to us how we fuel our bodies.
that being said I don't find oatmeal cookies particularily unhealthy. probably better for me than that double chocolate bread I had earlier0 -
Because people on this site are in denial and for them everything is healthy in moderation, fuel is just fuel, etc, etc.
Which I think is utter BS, personally. When I have to make a decision and consider if that serving of ice cream or that cookie is worth being hungry later, that should be a pretty good sign that it's not a 'healthy' choice.
I'm all for everything in moderation. I still eat cookies and chocolates and ice cream (heck, look at my diary). I don't feel guilty about it (well, except when I eat too much of either). I'm just not going to pretend that it's the best choice I could have made. Just because it fits my calories/macros doesn't mean I couldn't have eaten something more nutritious instead.
And for what it's worth, for me oatmeal cookies are an abomination, especially when they come with raisins.
I don't agree with this. I make that exact decision over foods like leafy greens and nuts. I'd take equal calories of spinach souffle over raw spinach, and peanut butter over peanuts just on the satiety factor. I don't consider it an indication that raw spinach and peanuts aren't a healthy choice.
They would definitely not be a smart choice if I don't have many calories left and I'm hungry.0 -
I love oatmeal cookies! even the buttery kind. I don't eat a lot of those, so they're not consider unhealthy. They are high in calories and fat yes, but eating just one or two will not set me back.0
-
Nothing wrong with oatmeal cookies.0
-
Because people on this site are in denial and for them everything is healthy in moderation, fuel is just fuel, etc, etc.
Which I think is utter BS, personally. When I have to make a decision and consider if that serving of ice cream or that cookie is worth being hungry later, that should be a pretty good sign that it's not a 'healthy' choice.
I'm all for everything in moderation. I still eat cookies and chocolates and ice cream (heck, look at my diary). I don't feel guilty about it (well, except when I eat too much of either). I'm just not going to pretend that it's the best choice I could have made. Just because it fits my calories/macros doesn't mean I couldn't have eaten something more nutritious instead.
And for what it's worth, for me oatmeal cookies are an abomination, especially when they come with raisins.
I don't agree with this. I make that exact decision over foods like leafy greens and nuts. I'd take equal calories of spinach souffle over raw spinach, and peanut butter over peanuts just on the satiety factor. I don't consider it an indication that raw spinach and peanuts aren't a healthy choice.
They would definitely not be a smart choice if I don't have many calories left and I'm hungry.
Also, in the context of a balanced diet and absent a medical condition, you don't get extra credit for eating a bowl of broccoli over a bowl of ice cream as long as you are hitting your macros/micros and are within your calorie goal.0 -
They are like that in here. They think as long as u don't go over ur calorie limit, u can stuff ur face with all sorts of junkfood and never suffer any consequences ,even tho millions of people die everyday from heart attack or type 2 diabetes
Who is 'they'? That's not how a well-balanced diet works. As long as you eat in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight, that's true. That is completely separate from losing weight the healthy way, which is eating a good balance of macronutrients, along with fruits and vegetables. While doing this, you can still eat other foods you like that fit into those macros, like cookies and ice cream, and chips, etc, as long as they fit into your calorie deficit. That's how it works.
Agree....this is what bugs me, the high and mighty attitudes that "clean eaters" have!! I eat all foods in moderation, basically 80/20.0 -
CharonCharon wrote: »I stated they had butter, white sugar, flour, chocolate chips, ect.
I consider all these things unhealthy.
But a couple of people say everything is healthy.
Is my wording wrong?
What would be unhealthy to those people in a cookie?
BTW - I like to eat in volumes.
I have never been able to do portion control in my entire life.
Oatmeal is a food I can eat and be full and be happy without guilt.
Because those ingredients in and of themselves and consumed in appropriate quantities aren't inherently "unhealthy"....
eating oatmeal cookies as a major part of your diet = unhealthy....
fitting in a cookie or two in an otherwise balanced and nutritious diet...not really a big deal
context, context, context....
overall diets can be healthy or unhealthy...big picture.0 -
By many definitions, the oatmeal cookies being suggested here would be clean.0
-
CharonCharon wrote: »I stated they had butter, white sugar, flour, chocolate chips, ect.
I consider all these things unhealthy.
But a couple of people say everything is healthy.
Is my wording wrong?
What would be unhealthy to those people in a cookie?
BTW - I like to eat in volumes.
I have never been able to do portion control in my entire life.
Oatmeal is a food I can eat and be full and be happy without guilt.
Everything in there provides vitamins, minerals, macros, and energy (well except the extract which makes the cookies better but is neutral as far as dietary needs go). Even the leavening (baking soda and/or powder I assume) provides electrolytes. It is all whole ingredients (OK, white or unbleached flour are not whole grains, but still a single source food and chocolate chips are not a whole food, but I never put them in oatmeal cookies anyway, I prefer raisins or peanuts) so what can possibly be unhealthy about them?
0 -
camilacreme wrote: »I like oatmeal cookies. I make them "healthier" (or whatever) by using brown sugar instead of refines white. Also - I prefer the taste! But at the end of the day.... a cookie is a cookie and if it tastes good and you can eat it - eat it!!!
In the interest of sharing information: Brown sugar is white sugar with some molasses added. The amount of "refining" or "processing" is the same in both. The actual amount of molasses in brown sugar is so tiny that it doesn't make the nutritional content of white sugar any different than brown sugar.
I use brown sugar in my oatmeal cookies because they taste better that way.
That's I was thinking, lol.0 -
I'm pretty sure the "everything in moderation crowd" frequently (not always) advocates for hitting your macro goals and eating nutrient dense foods while enjoying your treats. So no one is suggesting "stuffing your face with junk food" or eating cookies for dinner so you have no room to meet your other nutrients. To those criticizing this point of view - at least characterize it correctly. Moderation posters generally show up in threads where someone is trying to eliminate a certain food because they think they need to just to let them know they have another option: moderation. That's exactly what happened in this original thread (why OP felt the need to start a new thread just to respond to her other thread is beyond me). OP wanted to binge eat on cookies but realized that calorie free oatmeal cookies don't necessarily exist. Posters were trying to let OP know that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about cookies (or cake or pie or ice cream) if eaten in moderation. Moderation =/= stuffing your face or missing out on important micro and macro nutrients. And I personally have never seen anyone advocate for that type of diet here (don't let the low post count fool you; long time lurker here). Many times a moderation advocate will post a simple "CICO, everything in moderation" response without much context. It would be possible for an OP in that scenario to get the wrong idea about what moderation means. But, jesus christ, if a person cannot utilize the giant search feature at the top of the community page to find the answer to their question that was posted just ten minutes ago, they don't deserve context. 0
-
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*
For all the people +1ing and agreeing with this, pay close attention to the bolded word up there. No one is criticizing those who avoid excess sugar, junk food, etc. People who advocate moderation will question the need to severely restrict or eliminate anything unless there is an underlying medical condition, but no one is saying people excessively eat anything. That's the whole point of, you know, moderation.
0 -
Did OP ever clarify what's unhealthy about oatmeal cookies?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions