are carbs really that terrible?
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »If ingredients are just ingredients, why all the motivation to figure out what's actually in aspartame or sucralose but not in other ingredients. That seems... odd. If it's fair game to consider all of the "stuff" that's included in aspartame, it seems like it would also be fair game to consider all the "stuff" that's in an apple or egg or blueberry? No? If not, why not?
Ha! Fair question. I think it comes down to trust. Who do you trust more, the maker of eggs and blueberries
, or the maker of aspartame 
? 0 -
Sure. But would that rack of ribs lead to cravings? For me it wouldn't. It would be damned tasty though!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
I wouldn't say it is bizarre. I'd say it is an individual thing. For me, it was sugar. Take out the fat and give me a soda or ju-jubes. I didn't crave the taste of potatoes but they were a gateway food for me that led to more sugary stuff.
Sometimes it IS the carbs.
Sometimes it is other foods. I can't binge on salty or fat foods. My body doesn't work that way. I love cheese, but I can't sit and eat it for hours like I could carbs. An individual thing.
Yup, I could easily overeat on many primarily carb foods, but not so much on primarily fat foods. And then there's how my body feels after each...
What do you mean by "primarily fat foods"? Would nuts and fatty meats like baby back ribs and bacon qualify?
I was thinking of bacon yes. I can over eat on nuts, but mainly because they are convenient and easy to just pop in my mouth without thinking. They ARE high calorie, so yes, I have to be careful. I don't "crave" nuts, though.
And, if I eat myself silly with bacon, I don't often find myself wanting another fatty food soon after.
If I eat a lot of sugary foods, I typically crave more sugary foods.
Again, that's me. I just find it easier not to fight against my body so I just don't eat them.
As Lemur notes, many refined carb foods are also fatty foods (desserts and chips for example), many aren't such as Cap'n Crunch. If I eat a bowl of Cap'n crunch, I want more and I'm hungry. If I eat an avocado for breakfast, which I did today, I'm fine until lunch, and I'll find it easier to have a nutritious lunch.
Again, I'm only speaking for me: it's just easier to reach MY goals when I limit the heavily refined carbs in my diet.
Got ya. I could totally overeat on nuts, and if baby back ribs count, I could easily eat more than twice my TDEE at one meal.
0 -
rjmudlax13 wrote: »dangit...why didn't anyone tell me there was a carbs are bad thread started. Now I need to waste hours of my life catching up.
*Grabs popcorn*
Here you go. You can share mine. ^_^
is it sugar free popcorn?0 -
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce (
) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.0 -
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.
Some people are also very concerned about what goes into the animals that create their eggs (were they fed antibiotics, were they fed vegetarian feed) and the chemicals that may have been used in the production of the blueberries.
So I guess the ingredients that make the ingredients do matter, except for when they don't.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sure. But would that rack of ribs lead to cravings? For me it wouldn't. It would be damned tasty though!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
I wouldn't say it is bizarre. I'd say it is an individual thing. For me, it was sugar. Take out the fat and give me a soda or ju-jubes. I didn't crave the taste of potatoes but they were a gateway food for me that led to more sugary stuff.
Sometimes it IS the carbs.
Sometimes it is other foods. I can't binge on salty or fat foods. My body doesn't work that way. I love cheese, but I can't sit and eat it for hours like I could carbs. An individual thing.
Yup, I could easily overeat on many primarily carb foods, but not so much on primarily fat foods. And then there's how my body feels after each...
What do you mean by "primarily fat foods"? Would nuts and fatty meats like baby back ribs and bacon qualify?
I was thinking of bacon yes. I can over eat on nuts, but mainly because they are convenient and easy to just pop in my mouth without thinking. They ARE high calorie, so yes, I have to be careful. I don't "crave" nuts, though.
And, if I eat myself silly with bacon, I don't often find myself wanting another fatty food soon after.
If I eat a lot of sugary foods, I typically crave more sugary foods.
Again, that's me. I just find it easier not to fight against my body so I just don't eat them.
As Lemur notes, many refined carb foods are also fatty foods (desserts and chips for example), many aren't such as Cap'n Crunch. If I eat a bowl of Cap'n crunch, I want more and I'm hungry. If I eat an avocado for breakfast, which I did today, I'm fine until lunch, and I'll find it easier to have a nutritious lunch.
Again, I'm only speaking for me: it's just easier to reach MY goals when I limit the heavily refined carbs in my diet.
Got ya. I could totally overeat on nuts, and if baby back ribs count, I could easily eat more than twice my TDEE at one meal.
I don't think I get the types of cravings being discussed. I mean, I do crave certain foods sometimes, but it's really more of a hankering, than a "must have now!!" type thing. And it's more likely to be a fatty food than a sugary/carby food.0 -
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.
Well, that's a different type of label. Yes, many people will look for things like "organic" "antibiotic free" "steroid free" "grass fed" "pastured" "humanely raised" etc. But that will not be found in the ingredients label, so it's still a separate subject.0 -
OK, I admit that one made me smile. Well done.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »If ingredients are just ingredients, why all the motivation to figure out what's actually in aspartame or sucralose but not in other ingredients. That seems... odd. If it's fair game to consider all of the "stuff" that's included in aspartame, it seems like it would also be fair game to consider all the "stuff" that's in an apple or egg or blueberry? No? If not, why not?
Ha! Fair question. I think it comes down to trust. Who do you trust more, the maker of eggs and blueberries , or the maker of aspartame ?
0 -
Good vs Evil---meh, I don't know. Here is what I believe and I am a little surprised it didn't come up in these 4 pages. Processed foods are not good for you. No matter how easy they are, no matter how tasty they are, processed foods have junk added to them that aren't meant to be good for you. Adding fructose to food has caused damage to the American population. I believe GMO's are not being digested as intended and should be avoided. I don't eat processed protein or processed carbs. Check the ingredients on your "healthy" yogurt and tell me you feel comfortable eating it. Compare that to plain greek yogurt. If you can process dairy consider dropping flavored yogurt and mix your own starting with greek.
If you are talking about whole unprocessed carbs, I agree with you. Have it, and enjoy it, if you're lucky enough that your body can handle it. I am somewhat lucky but I have to watch my carbs more than I would like to.
If you are eating whole unprocessed foods you will be much better off no matter what your macros end up being...
Hi Gina,
I've found our discussions about processed foods here to be more productive once someone pointed out the Brazilian classifications of processing - Natural/Minimal, Processed, and Ultra Processed.
Since just saying "processed" would technically include the strawberry I pick from my garden and throw in the freezer, we would have semantics debates when someone suggested not eating processed foods. But if what you are actually talking about are Ultra Processed foods, that's a different story. And probably one best left for another thread.
0 -
And for me it's definitely a refined carb kind of thing. And having some chips is always going to lead me to crave something refined carb like.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sure. But would that rack of ribs lead to cravings? For me it wouldn't. It would be damned tasty though!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
I wouldn't say it is bizarre. I'd say it is an individual thing. For me, it was sugar. Take out the fat and give me a soda or ju-jubes. I didn't crave the taste of potatoes but they were a gateway food for me that led to more sugary stuff.
Sometimes it IS the carbs.
Sometimes it is other foods. I can't binge on salty or fat foods. My body doesn't work that way. I love cheese, but I can't sit and eat it for hours like I could carbs. An individual thing.
Yup, I could easily overeat on many primarily carb foods, but not so much on primarily fat foods. And then there's how my body feels after each...
What do you mean by "primarily fat foods"? Would nuts and fatty meats like baby back ribs and bacon qualify?
I was thinking of bacon yes. I can over eat on nuts, but mainly because they are convenient and easy to just pop in my mouth without thinking. They ARE high calorie, so yes, I have to be careful. I don't "crave" nuts, though.
And, if I eat myself silly with bacon, I don't often find myself wanting another fatty food soon after.
If I eat a lot of sugary foods, I typically crave more sugary foods.
Again, that's me. I just find it easier not to fight against my body so I just don't eat them.
As Lemur notes, many refined carb foods are also fatty foods (desserts and chips for example), many aren't such as Cap'n Crunch. If I eat a bowl of Cap'n crunch, I want more and I'm hungry. If I eat an avocado for breakfast, which I did today, I'm fine until lunch, and I'll find it easier to have a nutritious lunch.
Again, I'm only speaking for me: it's just easier to reach MY goals when I limit the heavily refined carbs in my diet.
Got ya. I could totally overeat on nuts, and if baby back ribs count, I could easily eat more than twice my TDEE at one meal.
I don't think I get the types of cravings being discussed. I mean, I do crave certain foods sometimes, but it's really more of a hankering, than a "must have now!!" type thing. And it's more likely to be a fatty food than a sugary/carby food.
I believe we all have different bodies and brains. And I'm happy my tough to resist foods are refined carbs. I can easily limit or remove them. It would be harder for me to remove fats and meet my goals.
0 -
For nutritional advice I suggest the Health and Human Services guidelines. Just google and that will give you solid information that is unbiased, not only about safe calorie standards but also about balanced diets.
Opinions abound here.
My experience is I had to increase my protein to feel full.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »If ingredients are just ingredients, why all the motivation to figure out what's actually in aspartame or sucralose but not in other ingredients. That seems... odd. If it's fair game to consider all of the "stuff" that's included in aspartame, it seems like it would also be fair game to consider all the "stuff" that's in an apple or egg or blueberry? No? If not, why not?
Ha! Fair question. I think it comes down to trust. Who do you trust more, the maker of eggs and blueberries , or the maker of aspartame ?
/preempts senecarr coming back with the maker of eggs also makes hemlock, etc./
However, Mother Nature does not have to answer to shareholders.
0 -
Wouldn't 0% Greek yogurt still be ultra-processed?kshama2001 wrote: »Good vs Evil---meh, I don't know. Here is what I believe and I am a little surprised it didn't come up in these 4 pages. Processed foods are not good for you. No matter how easy they are, no matter how tasty they are, processed foods have junk added to them that aren't meant to be good for you. Adding fructose to food has caused damage to the American population. I believe GMO's are not being digested as intended and should be avoided. I don't eat processed protein or processed carbs. Check the ingredients on your "healthy" yogurt and tell me you feel comfortable eating it. Compare that to plain greek yogurt. If you can process dairy consider dropping flavored yogurt and mix your own starting with greek.
If you are talking about whole unprocessed carbs, I agree with you. Have it, and enjoy it, if you're lucky enough that your body can handle it. I am somewhat lucky but I have to watch my carbs more than I would like to.
If you are eating whole unprocessed foods you will be much better off no matter what your macros end up being...
Hi Gina,
I've found our discussions about processed foods here to be more productive once someone pointed out the Brazilian classifications of processing - Natural/Minimal, Processed, and Ultra Processed.
Since just saying "processed" would technically include the strawberry I pick from my garden and throw in the freezer, we would have semantics debates when someone suggested not eating processed foods. But if what you are actually talking about are Ultra Processed foods, that's a different story. And probably one best left for another thread.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.
Well, that's a different type of label. Yes, many people will look for things like "organic" "antibiotic free" "steroid free" "grass fed" "pastured" "humanely raised" etc. But that will not be found in the ingredients label, so it's still a separate subject.
But it is arbitrary. Grass fed is desirable because it causes chemical changes. The composition, the "ingredients" of grass feed beef is different. There is a slight change in the amount of omega-3's in the fat.
If anyone was selling lab made meat, with people doing the combining of fats and lean muscle would you expect there to be an ingredients list? Even if the result is to make something that exists in nature?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
And for me it's definitely a refined carb kind of thing. And having some chips is always going to lead me to crave something refined carb like.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sure. But would that rack of ribs lead to cravings? For me it wouldn't. It would be damned tasty though!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
I wouldn't say it is bizarre. I'd say it is an individual thing. For me, it was sugar. Take out the fat and give me a soda or ju-jubes. I didn't crave the taste of potatoes but they were a gateway food for me that led to more sugary stuff.
Sometimes it IS the carbs.
Sometimes it is other foods. I can't binge on salty or fat foods. My body doesn't work that way. I love cheese, but I can't sit and eat it for hours like I could carbs. An individual thing.
Yup, I could easily overeat on many primarily carb foods, but not so much on primarily fat foods. And then there's how my body feels after each...
What do you mean by "primarily fat foods"? Would nuts and fatty meats like baby back ribs and bacon qualify?
I was thinking of bacon yes. I can over eat on nuts, but mainly because they are convenient and easy to just pop in my mouth without thinking. They ARE high calorie, so yes, I have to be careful. I don't "crave" nuts, though.
And, if I eat myself silly with bacon, I don't often find myself wanting another fatty food soon after.
If I eat a lot of sugary foods, I typically crave more sugary foods.
Again, that's me. I just find it easier not to fight against my body so I just don't eat them.
As Lemur notes, many refined carb foods are also fatty foods (desserts and chips for example), many aren't such as Cap'n Crunch. If I eat a bowl of Cap'n crunch, I want more and I'm hungry. If I eat an avocado for breakfast, which I did today, I'm fine until lunch, and I'll find it easier to have a nutritious lunch.
Again, I'm only speaking for me: it's just easier to reach MY goals when I limit the heavily refined carbs in my diet.
Got ya. I could totally overeat on nuts, and if baby back ribs count, I could easily eat more than twice my TDEE at one meal.
I don't think I get the types of cravings being discussed. I mean, I do crave certain foods sometimes, but it's really more of a hankering, than a "must have now!!" type thing. And it's more likely to be a fatty food than a sugary/carby food.
I believe we all have different bodies and brains. And I'm happy my tough to resist foods are refined carbs. I can easily limit or remove them. It would be harder for me to remove fats and meet my goals.
Oh yeah, chips. Frito Lay may well be the devil.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Good vs Evil---meh, I don't know. Here is what I believe and I am a little surprised it didn't come up in these 4 pages. Processed foods are not good for you. No matter how easy they are, no matter how tasty they are, processed foods have junk added to them that aren't meant to be good for you. Adding fructose to food has caused damage to the American population. I believe GMO's are not being digested as intended and should be avoided. I don't eat processed protein or processed carbs. Check the ingredients on your "healthy" yogurt and tell me you feel comfortable eating it. Compare that to plain greek yogurt. If you can process dairy consider dropping flavored yogurt and mix your own starting with greek.
If you are talking about whole unprocessed carbs, I agree with you. Have it, and enjoy it, if you're lucky enough that your body can handle it. I am somewhat lucky but I have to watch my carbs more than I would like to.
If you are eating whole unprocessed foods you will be much better off no matter what your macros end up being...
Hi Gina,
I've found our discussions about processed foods here to be more productive once someone pointed out the Brazilian classifications of processing - Natural/Minimal, Processed, and Ultra Processed.
Since just saying "processed" would technically include the strawberry I pick from my garden and throw in the freezer, we would have semantics debates when someone suggested not eating processed foods. But if what you are actually talking about are Ultra Processed foods, that's a different story. And probably one best left for another thread.
So thanks a Brazilian for the language to discuss processed food consistently?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »If ingredients are just ingredients, why all the motivation to figure out what's actually in aspartame or sucralose but not in other ingredients. That seems... odd. If it's fair game to consider all of the "stuff" that's included in aspartame, it seems like it would also be fair game to consider all the "stuff" that's in an apple or egg or blueberry? No? If not, why not?
Ha! Fair question. I think it comes down to trust. Who do you trust more, the maker of eggs and blueberries , or the maker of aspartame ?
/preempts senecarr coming back with the maker of eggs also makes hemlock, etc./
However, Mother Nature does not have to answer to shareholders.
My chickens don't make hemlock
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »If ingredients are just ingredients, why all the motivation to figure out what's actually in aspartame or sucralose but not in other ingredients. That seems... odd. If it's fair game to consider all of the "stuff" that's included in aspartame, it seems like it would also be fair game to consider all the "stuff" that's in an apple or egg or blueberry? No? If not, why not?
Ha! Fair question. I think it comes down to trust. Who do you trust more, the maker of eggs and blueberries , or the maker of aspartame ?
I preferhttp://knowyourmeme.com/memes/good-guy-lucifer 0 -
1. You're not going to gain weight from 998 cals a day ever because that is way too little lolo
2. Carbs don't make you fat if you eat good, natural ones like whole grains (oatmeal, rice, etc), fruits, and veg. Carbs are a necessity and your main source of energy. Natural carbs are the least likely to make you fat0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
That's the point. There's plenty of people on this board who'd flip their s*** about all dem chimikillz if some processed food had any of that on the label, but they're perfectly fine with this, because they have no idea that those chemicals are pretty much everywhere.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »If ingredients are just ingredients, why all the motivation to figure out what's actually in aspartame or sucralose but not in other ingredients. That seems... odd. If it's fair game to consider all of the "stuff" that's included in aspartame, it seems like it would also be fair game to consider all the "stuff" that's in an apple or egg or blueberry? No? If not, why not?
Ha! Fair question. I think it comes down to trust. Who do you trust more, the maker of eggs and blueberries , or the maker of aspartame ?
/preempts senecarr coming back with the maker of eggs also makes hemlock, etc./
However, Mother Nature does not have to answer to shareholders.
No, but mother nature is a different kind of mother that I can't repeat on these boards.
Nature has absolutely no interest in your survival. Most of it is, if it has any ability to ascribe intent, dead set on seeing you dead.
As much as I don't like the profit motive, I'll live with relying on people having an interest in having me alive to do repeat business over imbuing agency to a system of dynamic equilibria.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.
Well, that's a different type of label. Yes, many people will look for things like "organic" "antibiotic free" "steroid free" "grass fed" "pastured" "humanely raised" etc. But that will not be found in the ingredients label, so it's still a separate subject.
But it is arbitrary. Grass fed is desirable because it causes chemical changes. The composition, the "ingredients" of grass feed beef is different. There is a slight change in the amount of omega-3's in the fat.
If anyone was selling lab made meat, with people doing the combining of fats and lean muscle would you expect there to be an ingredients list? Even if the result is to make something that exists in nature?
Hmm, would I expect there to be an ingredients list? I would want one, I think. I expect that they'd patent some fancy name that could be put on a label (similar to aspartame) to get around listing all the scary ingredients, though.0 -
I feel you could go through and do this with all kinds of foods and cherry pick to make an example.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
I bet that would be different in the '80s. Pop dieting lore constantly tells people they are "addicted" to sugar. Yet Michael Moss' Sugar Fat Salt suggests that a huge reason for the increase in obesity since the '80s is the tripling of cheese consumption (fat). Granted, we've increased calories from many things.
I find plain starches entirely uninteresting, and same with overly sugary things, so that might be biasing me. I think plain bread or pasta is boring, cold cereal (sugary or no) is unpleasant, oatmeal I prefer sweetened only with berries, sugary coffee = ugh, etc. But if I have cheese I have to exercise will power to not overeat and when I didn't I would regularly eat a large chunk of good cheese.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
Like I would counter that if I was somewhere that offered a cheese plate (near pure fat) or offered a rice cakes, I and most people would hit up the cheese platter.
In fact, I think it is a rather contrived example to put even plain bread up against butter or butter up against almost anything. We have social conventions against eating pure butter. You'll find kids are far more likely to eat pure butter given the chance, at least part of that is they have not yet been indoctrinated with the cultural norm of "you do not eat pure butter, it is for putting on things."
Not for me! I'd pick the rice cakes over the cheese plate any day--and I like cheese!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sure. But would that rack of ribs lead to cravings? For me it wouldn't. It would be damned tasty though!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
I wouldn't say it is bizarre. I'd say it is an individual thing. For me, it was sugar. Take out the fat and give me a soda or ju-jubes. I didn't crave the taste of potatoes but they were a gateway food for me that led to more sugary stuff.
Sometimes it IS the carbs.
Sometimes it is other foods. I can't binge on salty or fat foods. My body doesn't work that way. I love cheese, but I can't sit and eat it for hours like I could carbs. An individual thing.
Yup, I could easily overeat on many primarily carb foods, but not so much on primarily fat foods. And then there's how my body feels after each...
What do you mean by "primarily fat foods"? Would nuts and fatty meats like baby back ribs and bacon qualify?
I was thinking of bacon yes. I can over eat on nuts, but mainly because they are convenient and easy to just pop in my mouth without thinking. They ARE high calorie, so yes, I have to be careful. I don't "crave" nuts, though.
And, if I eat myself silly with bacon, I don't often find myself wanting another fatty food soon after.
If I eat a lot of sugary foods, I typically crave more sugary foods.
Again, that's me. I just find it easier not to fight against my body so I just don't eat them.
As Lemur notes, many refined carb foods are also fatty foods (desserts and chips for example), many aren't such as Cap'n Crunch. If I eat a bowl of Cap'n crunch, I want more and I'm hungry. If I eat an avocado for breakfast, which I did today, I'm fine until lunch, and I'll find it easier to have a nutritious lunch.
Again, I'm only speaking for me: it's just easier to reach MY goals when I limit the heavily refined carbs in my diet.
Got ya. I could totally overeat on nuts, and if baby back ribs count, I could easily eat more than twice my TDEE at one meal.
I made ribs that were so delicious I was yearning for more an hour after I was done.0 -
So, if this is a trust issue, you trust bulls not to bull**** you more than you trust lab technicians not to when it comes to putting together muscle and fat?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.
Well, that's a different type of label. Yes, many people will look for things like "organic" "antibiotic free" "steroid free" "grass fed" "pastured" "humanely raised" etc. But that will not be found in the ingredients label, so it's still a separate subject.
But it is arbitrary. Grass fed is desirable because it causes chemical changes. The composition, the "ingredients" of grass feed beef is different. There is a slight change in the amount of omega-3's in the fat.
If anyone was selling lab made meat, with people doing the combining of fats and lean muscle would you expect there to be an ingredients list? Even if the result is to make something that exists in nature?
Hmm, would I expect there to be an ingredients list? I would want one, I think. I expect that they'd patent some fancy name that could be put on a label (similar to aspartame) to get around listing all the scary ingredients, though.
0 -
If you've never believed you can over eat on fats and protein, you've never been to a good Brazilian steak house.stevencloser wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sure. But would that rack of ribs lead to cravings? For me it wouldn't. It would be damned tasty though!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Double-Stuff Oreos=54% carbs, 43% fat.
I wonder though... if you're at olive garden and there's those "bread" sticks that people adore, and a bunch of pads of butter, which one will you gorge on while waiting for the meal...
Most people put butter or olive oil on bread. I suspect Olive Garden bread (based on memories from the '90s) has fat in it, too. The only bread I will compulsively eat (naan) does.
Plain fat isn't appealing, but neither is plain sugar.Yes, clearly many of the hyper palatable foods have both carbs and fats in roughly equal quantities. And many do not (popular breakfast "cereal" being a good example). I don't see a lot of people on here crying because they can't stop eating fat. Not many folks feel "addicted" [sic] to fat.
And if I didn't work on it I'd eat hyperpalatable foods (i.e., sweets or salty, fatty, starchy things like fries, as well as basically any delicious restaurant thing, like curries from an Indian restaurant) beyond what I should (and sometimes for emotional reasons). To blame carbs for this seems bizarre.
I wouldn't say it is bizarre. I'd say it is an individual thing. For me, it was sugar. Take out the fat and give me a soda or ju-jubes. I didn't crave the taste of potatoes but they were a gateway food for me that led to more sugary stuff.
Sometimes it IS the carbs.
Sometimes it is other foods. I can't binge on salty or fat foods. My body doesn't work that way. I love cheese, but I can't sit and eat it for hours like I could carbs. An individual thing.
Yup, I could easily overeat on many primarily carb foods, but not so much on primarily fat foods. And then there's how my body feels after each...
What do you mean by "primarily fat foods"? Would nuts and fatty meats like baby back ribs and bacon qualify?
I was thinking of bacon yes. I can over eat on nuts, but mainly because they are convenient and easy to just pop in my mouth without thinking. They ARE high calorie, so yes, I have to be careful. I don't "crave" nuts, though.
And, if I eat myself silly with bacon, I don't often find myself wanting another fatty food soon after.
If I eat a lot of sugary foods, I typically crave more sugary foods.
Again, that's me. I just find it easier not to fight against my body so I just don't eat them.
As Lemur notes, many refined carb foods are also fatty foods (desserts and chips for example), many aren't such as Cap'n Crunch. If I eat a bowl of Cap'n crunch, I want more and I'm hungry. If I eat an avocado for breakfast, which I did today, I'm fine until lunch, and I'll find it easier to have a nutritious lunch.
Again, I'm only speaking for me: it's just easier to reach MY goals when I limit the heavily refined carbs in my diet.
Got ya. I could totally overeat on nuts, and if baby back ribs count, I could easily eat more than twice my TDEE at one meal.
I made ribs that were so delicious I was yearning for more an hour after I was done.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
That's the point. There's plenty of people on this board who'd flip their s*** about all dem chimikillz if some processed food had any of that on the label, but they're perfectly fine with this, because they have no idea that those chemicals are pretty much everywhere.
Maybe a few. But I think it's more about wondering why lasagna needs ingredients we aren't familiar with when those ingredients aren't included in lasagna we make from scratch. What are they and why are they there? Many people don't want to have to do research just to eat dinner. So, you either trust the government to only approve stuff that won't hurt us, or you choose to avoid the additives and not have to wonder about it.0 -
So, if this is a trust issue, you trust bulls not to bull**** you more than you trust lab technicians not to when it comes to putting together muscle and fat?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The ingredients that make the ingredients don't matter? There's no chemical differences in various eggs? Well hell, you have some grass fed beef advocates to write to, because I've been assured again and again, beef isn't beef. Clearly the chemicals nature used are important to them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
My eggs are fowl, not foul. And putting labels on them is really, really hard. I've cracked at least a dozen trying to print all those ingredients on them.
Isn't it interesting though. Why aren't the eggs and blueberries labeled? If they chemicals in them are safe, and they're proud of what they made, why don't they label those foods? Isn't it odd that they won't disclose how they contain dihydrogen monoxide like most processed / convenience / unclean food? Are they afraid we'll all find out DHMO is also the world's most common solvent and is even used to clean the toilets at McDonald's? You're right, it is most foul that they can hide this stuff from us.
Or maybe labels are a really poor heuristic for assessing the health effects of things. I've never felt unlabeled hemlock was healthier for me than an aspartame laden diet coke.
I'm sure you know the answers to these questions, but I'll play. They do label them. The labels say "eggs" and "blueberries" because that's what is included. Ingredients labels on food do not provide the chemical make-up of food, it provides a list of ingredients. Blueberries are an ingredient, as are eggs. If water is an ingredient, it will be listed as "water". Hemlock is not food, so it doesn't get a label, other than perhaps "Danger - poison".
So eggs, blueberries, and other things arrive ex-nihilo, they aren't made out of anything, they just exist as ingredients of themselves? The notion between what is an ingredient and what is a chemical is a bit arbitrary, and to say that by their own virtue an egg is an egg relies on a natural fallacy - that being found in that state without human interaction (ignoring modern food doesn't really happen without human intervention). I could just as easily say, the contents of my snickers bar is "1 snickers bar". That's the easiest ingredients list ever.
I kind of wish the original commenter was here though. I always enjoy finding out the new and dreadful ways aspartame is going to kill me, make me an addict, steal candy from babies, borrowing $5 bucks without repaying it, cause world hunger, cause world war, cause the zombie apocalypse, and make my word day 5 minutes longer.
You are mixing subjects. If the subject is food ingredient labels, then what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter. The end product that can be combined with other ingredients or packaged alone, is the ingredient. The post was about reading ingredients on a food label. You get a foul for trying to "move the goalpost".
And I enjoy that your response to a call of natural fallacy is to double down with "what chemicals nature bonded to produce the produce ( ) doesn't matter".
It matters mightily. I'd say most allergens have far more to do with the chemicals that foods make for themselves over anything people assemble.
Heck, look at almonds or walnuts. Generally safe food, but even the ones people eat have cyanide, and particularly for walnuts, it is possible for them to produce enough cyanide in a natural state to be poisonous. I'd honestly find more value in having the relative level of cyanide in an almond or walnut over knowing how much aspartame is in my diet coke.
Well, that's a different type of label. Yes, many people will look for things like "organic" "antibiotic free" "steroid free" "grass fed" "pastured" "humanely raised" etc. But that will not be found in the ingredients label, so it's still a separate subject.
But it is arbitrary. Grass fed is desirable because it causes chemical changes. The composition, the "ingredients" of grass feed beef is different. There is a slight change in the amount of omega-3's in the fat.
If anyone was selling lab made meat, with people doing the combining of fats and lean muscle would you expect there to be an ingredients list? Even if the result is to make something that exists in nature?
Hmm, would I expect there to be an ingredients list? I would want one, I think. I expect that they'd patent some fancy name that could be put on a label (similar to aspartame) to get around listing all the scary ingredients, though.
Yes, pretty much.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
That's the point. There's plenty of people on this board who'd flip their s*** about all dem chimikillz if some processed food had any of that on the label, but they're perfectly fine with this, because they have no idea that those chemicals are pretty much everywhere.
Maybe a few. But I think it's more about wondering why lasagna needs ingredients we aren't familiar with when those ingredients aren't included in lasagna we make from scratch. What are they and why are they there? Many people don't want to have to do research just to eat dinner. So, you either trust the government to only approve stuff that won't hurt us, or you choose to avoid the additives and not have to wonder about it.
If you don't want to check what stuff is and if it's fine for yourself that's alright.
But more often we see people coming on here and telling us all how horrible those things (that they didn't even check what they are) are for you and that y'all need to detox from them or whatever. That's a problem.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
That seems like a lot of rules.
I choose to eat a healthy, varied diet that is free of all those confines.
I eat flavored greek yogurt....happily. You can say I am not healthy, however I disagree and my doctor disagrees, so I am totally cool with my food choices.
I also eat Peanut Butter Snickers. I'm eating one right now. Something is not inherently unhealthy, it has to be seen in the grand scope of someone's diet.
A lot of rules? read the label, gasp.
You're right. Snickers are super healthy. Maybe if the OP had a snickers there wouldn't be a calorie deficit. This is about the original poster, right?? Oh, wait.
Read the label? Am I suppose to freak out if I can't pronounce something on the label? Because I was told that rule, but shoot isomalto-oligosaccharides aren't even a tongue twister.
Also:
Are those all ok ingredients?
I CALL FOUL!! I defy you to find a blueberry or egg with that on the label.
That's the point. There's plenty of people on this board who'd flip their s*** about all dem chimikillz if some processed food had any of that on the label, but they're perfectly fine with this, because they have no idea that those chemicals are pretty much everywhere.
Maybe a few. But I think it's more about wondering why lasagna needs ingredients we aren't familiar with when those ingredients aren't included in lasagna we make from scratch. What are they and why are they there? Many people don't want to have to do research just to eat dinner. So, you either trust the government to only approve stuff that won't hurt us, or you choose to avoid the additives and not have to wonder about it.
If you don't want to check what stuff is and if it's fine for yourself that's alright.
But more often we see people coming on here and telling us all how horrible those things (that they didn't even check what they are) are for you and that y'all need to detox from them or whatever. That's a problem.
Yes, I agree.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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