Personal Trainer & Weight Management Certified here to help!
Replies
-
tracyannk28 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »Lame... I just went through all 12 pages to see if OP ever came back because I really wanted to hear more about clean eating and empty calories.
I wanted to learn more about these 'special occasions' where I'm allowed to eat white food.
Aww me too. Every day is a special occasion for me
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »tracyannk28 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »Lame... I just went through all 12 pages to see if OP ever came back because I really wanted to hear more about clean eating and empty calories.
I wanted to learn more about these 'special occasions' where I'm allowed to eat white food.
only on days that end with y.
I just laughed out loud and woke up my dogs. So true.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used...
Okay, but taking that one step further - what if my oil and water levels are both filled to the top? Why do I need that fuel with oil and water? It would just go to waste because I don't need either of those things at the moment. At a different time I may need those things, but right now all I need is some gas (petrol).
As has been said many times, people fail to consider context and dosage in these discussions. Both of those things matter tremendously. A diet composed entirely of junk food and alcohol is obviously sub-optimal (to say the least) - but those things, in appropriate dosages and in the context of an otherwise well-rounded, nutritious diet, are perfectly fine.
Overall calorie intake obviously has to be considered in the discussion as well. A person eating 1500 calories a day has a smaller window and less wiggle room than a person eating 2500 calories per day. Using the 80/20 school of thought, the 2500/cal person has 500 discretionary calories at their disposal; the 1500 calorie person has 300.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used.
Alcohol on nutrient basis gives little to nothing other than calories. If you ate the same number of calories in a chicken and broccoli you would get calories, protein and various vitamins. Going on that basis, alcohol is "empty" because the calories are not made up of any worthwhile components.
But that doesn't mean that alcohol in itself is worthless.
Now I've done the alcohol thing to death upthread (not in reality) and established that there are far greater benefits than nothing including just the giggles
you leave my wine alone
I believe that what is meant by that, is that most of the benefits (that you previously described); can be obtained without alcohol & thus also without the calories from it. Plus even the carbohydrates that come from it, can also be obtained via less calorie dense & more nutritional options.0 -
Staying out of this one, but just wanted to pop in with best wishes for the Lemons!0
-
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used.
Alcohol on nutrient basis gives little to nothing other than calories. If you ate the same number of calories in a chicken and broccoli you would get calories, protein and various vitamins. Going on that basis, alcohol is "empty" because the calories are not made up of any worthwhile components.
But that doesn't mean that alcohol in itself is worthless.
Now I've done the alcohol thing to death upthread (not in reality) and established that there are far greater benefits than nothing including just the giggles
you leave my wine alone
I believe that what is meant by that, is that most of the benefits (that you previously described); can be obtained without alcohol & thus also without the calories from it. Plus even the carbohydrates that come from it, can also be obtained via less calorie dense & more nutritional options.
Just because they "can be" doesn't mean they "should be".
And what is wrong with calorie density? And do we now get extra credit for exceeding our nutritional requirements?0 -
Thanks @PeachyCarol
IRT alcohol. I drink occasionally (mabye 1 or 2 a month) but when i do its for the social aspect and generally because margaritas are awesome. A lot of people do tend to forget that there are psychological aspects to health and wellness. So even if the calories arent really providing much benefit, the social aspect is well worth it for me.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Sometimes I think that MFP is one of those organizations funded by Coca Cola (you know the message -- all about exercise, and just eating "right" amount of calories, doesn't matter what you eat.) Go for it I say -- just try eating crap to your calorie macro and see how you feel, and how much exercise you are motivated to do. I eat to my calories AND my macros. The combination keeps me health and feeling satisfied. When my macros get out of balance for ME then I have a hard time sticking to my food plan and calorie plan. (PS my macros are higher protein/lower carb, cause that's how I feel best and most motivated to stick to my calorie macros).
What exactly makes you think the diet you describe leads to "feeling bad" and performing poorly athletically? I have a muffin for breakfast every week day and half a payday candy bar for a mid afternoon snack, and I'm probably fitter than you and definitely don't "feel bad". Eyes on your own lane
(unless you are quite short I guess).
and/or disabled. When I am bedridden (sleepy), I don't consume over a 1,000 calories, 1,200 when I'm housebound (weak) because at least then, I am able to do some chores or 1,400 when I'm active either with exercising at home, for an hour or via running errands.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used.
Alcohol on nutrient basis gives little to nothing other than calories. If you ate the same number of calories in a chicken and broccoli you would get calories, protein and various vitamins. Going on that basis, alcohol is "empty" because the calories are not made up of any worthwhile components.
But that doesn't mean that alcohol in itself is worthless.
Now I've done the alcohol thing to death upthread (not in reality) and established that there are far greater benefits than nothing including just the giggles
you leave my wine alone
I believe that what is meant by that, is that most of the benefits (that you previously described); can be obtained without alcohol & thus also without the calories from it. Plus even the carbohydrates that come from it, can also be obtained via less calorie dense & more nutritional options.
Just because they "can be" doesn't mean they "should be".
And what is wrong with calorie density? And do we now get extra credit for exceeding our nutritional requirements?
That's why I didn't say "should be" because I wasn't implying that it's wrong.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Sure nutritionally less dense foods help to meet macros, but if someone is working under a fairly strict calorie budget, getting too many less nutritionally dense foods in the diet will be an issue.
0 -
That'd be 1200 calories to use on nutritious food and I believe if someone is committed to it, that wouldn't be that hard to fulfill. Supplementation is also an option to help if micronutrients may be lacking.Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My point is the more someone restricts their caloric intake the more difficult it is to get adequate nutrition if the diet consists of a high % of non-nutrient dense foods.0 -
Congratulations to the Lemons! Welcome to the little lemon seed!
0 -
So people with relatively more restricted diets will have less flexibility in their diets, right? Do you think quibbling over whether 80/20 or some other ratio is globally applicable really addresses the core of the issue?Packerjohn wrote: »
That'd be 1200 calories to use on nutritious food and I believe if someone is committed to it, that wouldn't be that hard to fulfill. Supplementation is also an option to help if micronutrients may be lacking.Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My point is the more someone restricts their caloric intake the more difficult it is to get adequate nutrition if the diet consists of a high % of non-nutrient dense foods.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
That'd be 1200 calories to use on nutritious food and I believe if someone is committed to it, that wouldn't be that hard to fulfill. Supplementation is also an option to help if micronutrients may be lacking.Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My point is the more someone restricts their caloric intake the more difficult it is to get adequate nutrition if the diet consists of a high % of non-nutrient dense foods.
But that is not what anyone is saying. People are saying to fit in a non-nutrient dense item after you've hit your nutrition goals. On 1200 cals, that may be more difficult. Even if people are on 1200 cals, they should be eating back exercise calories, and so that makes the totals go up and makes fitting in those discretionary calories easier.
I don't understand why this is an argument day in and day out, or why others feel the need to tell everyone that they have to avoid these treats simply because some people have lower calorie alotments, or aren't smart enough to know that they should be focusing on nutrition first and discretionary calories second. If people aren't smart enough to know that they should be eating a variety of nutritious foods, then I really don't know how this discussion amongst those of us who DO know that is going to help them...0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »One benefit though...it leads to those humorously ridiculous comparisons of extremes where people argue 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. (It isn't.)
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Sure nutritionally less dense foods help to meet macros, but if someone is working under a fairly strict calorie budget, getting too many less nutritionally dense foods in the diet will be an issue.
Then that person working under a fairly strict calorie budget should take that into consideration when contemplating the intake of less nutritionally dense foods. Simple. Nobody has suggested foregoing meeting your macros to eat junk.
0 -
sparky00721 wrote:jofjltncb6 wrote: »One benefit though...it leads to those humorously ridiculous comparisons of extremes where people argue 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. (It isn't.)
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
No, it isn't absolutely true.
ETA: Maybe I'm being thrown off by mangled nested quotes, I don't know.0 -
sparky00721 wrote: »
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
You can't measure the health of an individual food in a vacuum. It is all about the context of your overall diet.
Besides, do you actually think that eating 1500 calories of broccoli would be a) possible and b) pleasant? Especially for those around you?
Ok - I have to stop, I hate the strawman argument and can't even believe I've responded this much!0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Sure nutritionally less dense foods help to meet macros, but if someone is working under a fairly strict calorie budget, getting too many less nutritionally dense foods in the diet will be an issue.
I ate at 1200 for quite a while before I really upped my activity level. I had no problem fitting in a 150-200 calorie treat while still eating a nutritionally dense diet.
This argument gets brought up all the time, and it's silly. Low-fat protein sources, fresh veggies, berries? They're not that calorie dense.
I'm not sure what your point is, frankly. If the argument is that someone can fit a small percentage of less nutritionally dense foods in, what's your point about "too many less nutritionally dense foods" about? No one is saying to do that.
(Yeah, I guess I'm not staying out of this one.)
0 -
sparky00721 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »One benefit though...it leads to those humorously ridiculous comparisons of extremes where people argue 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. (It isn't.)
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
They are both very unhealthy. Neither has much protein, the donut is severely lacking in micronutrients, the broccoli has no fats and also limited micronutrients (although more than the donuts). Neither is the well rounded diet that humans need to thrive.0 -
The point appears to be that some people on restricted diets have to be careful about calorie-dense food, therefore... yeah, I don't know.PeachyCarol wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Sure nutritionally less dense foods help to meet macros, but if someone is working under a fairly strict calorie budget, getting too many less nutritionally dense foods in the diet will be an issue.
I ate at 1200 for quite a while before I really upped my activity level. I had no problem fitting in a 150-200 calorie treat while still eating a nutritionally dense diet.
This argument gets brought up all the time, and it's silly. Low-fat protein sources, fresh veggies, berries? They're not that calorie dense.
I'm not sure what your point is, frankly. If the argument is that someone can fit a small percentage of less nutritionally dense foods in, what's your point about "too many less nutritionally dense foods" about? No one is saying to do that.
(Yeah, I guess I'm not staying out of this one.)
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
That'd be 1200 calories to use on nutritious food and I believe if someone is committed to it, that wouldn't be that hard to fulfill. Supplementation is also an option to help if micronutrients may be lacking.Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My point is the more someone restricts their caloric intake the more difficult it is to get adequate nutrition if the diet consists of a high % of non-nutrient dense foods.
But that is not what anyone is saying. People are saying to fit in a non-nutrient dense item after you've hit your nutrition goals. On 1200 cals, that may be more difficult. Even if people are on 1200 cals, they should be eating back exercise calories, and so that makes the totals go up and makes fitting in those discretionary calories easier.
I don't understand why this is an argument day in and day out, or why others feel the need to tell everyone that they have to avoid these treats simply because some people have lower calorie alotments, or aren't smart enough to know that they should be focusing on nutrition first and discretionary calories second. If people aren't smart enough to know that they should be eating a variety of nutritious foods, then I really don't know how this discussion amongst those of us who DO know that is going to help them...
My mother always made me eat dinner before I was allowed to have dessert. I still abide by that policy.
I agree with every word you said. As someone who used to have a low calorie allotment, I can speak to the fact that you can still have discretionary calories depending on your choices for your nutritious foods. Vegetables and lean/low fat sources of protein don't have many calories.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The point appears to be that some people on restricted diets have to be careful about calorie-dense food, therefore... yeah, I don't know.PeachyCarol wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Sure nutritionally less dense foods help to meet macros, but if someone is working under a fairly strict calorie budget, getting too many less nutritionally dense foods in the diet will be an issue.
I ate at 1200 for quite a while before I really upped my activity level. I had no problem fitting in a 150-200 calorie treat while still eating a nutritionally dense diet.
This argument gets brought up all the time, and it's silly. Low-fat protein sources, fresh veggies, berries? They're not that calorie dense.
I'm not sure what your point is, frankly. If the argument is that someone can fit a small percentage of less nutritionally dense foods in, what's your point about "too many less nutritionally dense foods" about? No one is saying to do that.
(Yeah, I guess I'm not staying out of this one.)
Right. I don't understand what there is to argue about. People with a smaller calorie budget have to be more careful with how they spend those calories. Doesn't mean they can't save up and have a big splurge once in a while, or a small splurge on a more regular basis.
Does anyone actually think that people are recommending otherwise?0 -
sparky00721 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »One benefit though...it leads to those humorously ridiculous comparisons of extremes where people argue 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. (It isn't.)
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
They are both very unhealthy. Neither has much protein, the donut is severely lacking in micronutrients, the broccoli has no fats and also limited micronutrients (although more than the donuts). Neither is the well rounded diet that humans need to thrive.
And why is it always broccoli? There are so many other vegetables that could be, and should be brought up, if we're going to compare a vegetable to a food that some people consider nutritionally unsound. Broccoli isn't even all that nutritionally viable. It's fibrous, to be sure, and pretty darn gas-producing. Why don't we discuss the nutritional merits of the sweet potato? Or kale? Or carrots? It amazes me that time and again, when a vegetable and a carb/fat food like donuts or cookies are compared, the veg is always broccoli. For pete's sake.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »sparky00721" wrote:
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
No, it isn't absolutely true.
ETA: Maybe I'm being thrown off by mangled nested quotes, I don't know.
Thanks for responding Deguello Tex. It may not have been clear from my post, and perhaps I was misunderstanding the earlier poster. I thought someone was saying that it was humorously ridiculous to say that 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. If that was what was being said, I don't understand how that can be.
1500 calories of broccoli (that's a lot of broccoli): 100% RDA of Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Iron and 150 grams protein, plus 100 g fibre.
1500 calories of yummy doughnuts: 0% RDA of Vitamin A, Vitamin C and only 30% of calcium, plus 0% fibre.
0 -
And if you've already met your goals for those micros and macros, why is yet another 1500 calories of broccoli better than 1500 calories of donuts (presuming you have 1500 calories within your goal)?sparky00721 wrote: »
Thanks for responding Deguello Tex. It may not have been clear from my post, and perhaps I was misunderstanding the earlier poster. I thought someone was saying that it was humorously ridiculous to say that 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. If that was what was being said, I don't understand how that can be.
1500 calories of broccoli (that's a lot of broccoli): 100% RDA of Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Iron and 150 grams protein, plus 100 g fibre.
1500 calories of yummy doughnuts: 0% RDA of Vitamin A, Vitamin C and only 30% of calcium, plus 0% fibre.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »sparky00721 wrote: »
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
You can't measure the health of an individual food in a vacuum. It is all about the context of your overall diet.
Besides, do you actually think that eating 1500 calories of broccoli would be a) possible and b) pleasant? Especially for those around you?
Ok - I have to stop, I hate the strawman argument and can't even believe I've responded this much!
Agreed about unhelpfulness of a vacuum, and I understand the importance of the context of the whole diet. And no, I do not think that actually eating that much broccoli would be either possible or pleasant for me.
I was just trying to understand why is it humorously ridiculous to say broccoli is not healthier than doughnuts. Healthier at the very least in the sense of providing more micronutrients and more fibre.0 -
sparky00721 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »sparky00721" wrote:
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
No, it isn't absolutely true.
ETA: Maybe I'm being thrown off by mangled nested quotes, I don't know.
Thanks for responding Deguello Tex. It may not have been clear from my post, and perhaps I was misunderstanding the earlier poster. I thought someone was saying that it was humorously ridiculous to say that 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. If that was what was being said, I don't understand how that can be.
1500 calories of broccoli (that's a lot of broccoli): 100% RDA of Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Iron and 150 grams protein, plus 100 g fibre.
1500 calories of yummy doughnuts: 0% RDA of Vitamin A, Vitamin C and only 30% of calcium, plus 0% fibre.
The doughnuts are also going to give you a lot of iron, some of the protein, and fat (which the broccoli will pretty much lack).
The point is that you can't look at those calories in a vaccuum. If I've already eaten a lot of green vegetables in a given period, the doughnut may be a better choice for what I need (probably not 1,500 calories worth though).0 -
sparky00721 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sparky00721 wrote: »
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
You can't measure the health of an individual food in a vacuum. It is all about the context of your overall diet.
Besides, do you actually think that eating 1500 calories of broccoli would be a) possible and b) pleasant? Especially for those around you?
Ok - I have to stop, I hate the strawman argument and can't even believe I've responded this much!
Agreed about unhelpfulness of a vacuum, and I understand the importance of the context of the whole diet. And no, I do not think that actually eating that much broccoli would be either possible or pleasant for me.
I was just trying to understand why is it humorously ridiculous to say broccoli is not healthier than doughnuts. Healthier at the very least in the sense of providing more micronutrients and more fibre.
Because there is no reason to rank food. All food can be part of a solid diet.
If you want delicious and nutrious then your better off with a quest pumpkin muffin. It will be all of those items by a lot.0 -
sparky00721 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »One benefit though...it leads to those humorously ridiculous comparisons of extremes where people argue 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts. (It isn't.)
I have not read all (or even much) of this thread, but I am genuinely curious about this statement. Putting weight loss aside, is it not absolutely true that 150 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts?
(Secretly hoping they are exactly the same from a nutrition/health perspective so that I can go back to eating doughnuts.)
They are both very unhealthy. Neither has much protein, the donut is severely lacking in micronutrients, the broccoli has no fats and also limited micronutrients (although more than the donuts). Neither is the well rounded diet that humans need to thrive.
Actually I understand your first sentence even less than I understand the "humorously ridiculous" statement raised in my earlier posts. Clearly an all broccoli diet would be absurd. I have not read the whole thread, but I would be very surprised if anyone were suggesting that. I certainly was not, just exploring the statement that appeared to suggest that broccoli is not healthier than doughnuts.
I have never come across any site that has suggested that broccoli is "very unhealthy". It is clearly not complete, but "very unhealthy"?0
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