Personal Trainer & Weight Management Certified here to help!

11112141617

Replies

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    auddii 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.

    Don't you be dissin' broccoli! I love me some broccoli!

    56214953.jpg
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    auddii 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"?

    Again, you fail to consider context. A diet consisting entirely of broccoli would be unhealthy. A diet consisting entirely of doughnuts would be unhealthy. Either of them, in the appropriate context and dosage, are perfectly healthy.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    auddii 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.

    Don't you be dissin' broccoli! I love me some broccoli!

    56214953.jpg

    Have you ever roasted it? I'm lucky that it's so low in calories because I can eat an entire bag of roasted broccoli. It's amazing.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    auddii 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"?

    Right, so you're taking the complete context into account. And, in the complete context, donuts may be a better choice than broccoli. Therefore, it is not absolutely true that broccoli is healthier than donuts. It can be. It probably often is. It isn't always. It depends on why you're eating it and its role in your overall diet.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    WinoGelato 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.

    Well, you've admitted to the problem in your question. If you can't separate a food from it's context in a diet as a whole, there is no "healthier" option. There's room in someone's day for BOTH some broccoli and a donut.

    The thing is, none of this comes down to either ors, you've presented a false dilemma. It's one that's commonly brought up since the argument about dietary context is often ignored. How does that donut fit into one's consumption for the whole day? You might not need the fiber or other things, and might need some quick energy. The donut would be a better choice in that case.

    Context really matters.
  • sparky00721
    sparky00721 Posts: 113 Member
    auddii 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"?

    Right, so you're taking the complete context into account. And, in the complete context, donuts may be a better choice than broccoli. Therefore, it is not absolutely true that broccoli is healthier than donuts. It can be. It probably often is. It isn't always. It depends on why you're eating it and its role in your overall diet.

    Fair enough, thanks!
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited November 2015
    auddii 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"?

    1500 calories of broccoli would be very unhealthy. I cannot begin to imagine the impact it would have on your digestive system.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Why not have some broccoli and then have a donut?
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    Merrysix 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).

    Then i would suggest that is how you interpret the information. If you want to look at semantics, yes you can lose on a diet of junk food (i.e twinkie diet) but no one ever would suggest that. Commonly we promote a diet full of variety, foods that are nutrient dense (probably 80 to 90% of them), finding a diet that is sustainable and if you have calories left over then go ahead and have a treat.

    Personally, i was eating a klondike on a nightly basis, but decided to give it up once i really bumped up my lifting routine. I made this decision as i needed greater volume of food. So now i do grapes with cool whip. Same calories, both good (obviously klondike > grapes) but the volume is much greater on the grapes.

    Since there are so many people that "misinterpret" your message, I would suggest to rethink your communication strategy.


    ("your" of course is not referred specifically to you, but in general to those that promote IIFYM/flexible dieting/moderation and are "misinterpreted")

    If the greater you cant read past my first setence then its not an interpretation issue.. its a reading issue.

    These are your moderators, @Alex

    Damn right he is. And even if Psulemon wasn't one of my favorite mods here, I'd still say he has a point in what he said.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    auddii 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.

    kale_infographics.jpg
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    FatMoojor wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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

    Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .

    Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.

    so what is your thought on this statement @psulemon ?
    does it fit with your 80/20 rule, or it is just me struggling again with reading comprehension?

    I wasn't aware that psulemon was the translator of all posts on MFP and the one who determines if everyone's diet was appropriate for them. Wow that's a lot of responsibility @psulemon! You should ask them to double your mod salary! ;)

    Its ok. I am always willing to provide some perspective. And i got time right now while my wife is progressing during her labor.

    Wait what? WOW! Congrats!!!
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    auddii 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.

    sweet-potato-health-benefits-479844_650x488.jpg
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    WinoGelato 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!

    Right! 150 calories versus 1500. Yeah. That's a leap even Superman couldn't make.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    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 1500 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.)

    Only on MFP is this even a debate.

    I fill up on foods like sweet potatoes, cruciferous vegetables, and lean protein, and at the end of the day fit 70 - 300 calories of treats into my calorie budget.

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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!

    Right! 150 calories versus 1500. Yeah. That's a leap even Superman couldn't make.

    150 was a typo. Should have been 1500.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    edited November 2015
    WinoGelato 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.

    Except donuts provide more fat which is needed to function, whereas broccoli really doesn't. And there is still just as much of a risk to your health getting too much of certain micros (as you would definitely be overloading it with vitamin C with broccoli) as it would not getting enough with donuts.

    I could see someone ending up in the hospital faster because of eating only broccoli versus donuts.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    WinoGelato 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!

    Right! 150 calories versus 1500. Yeah. That's a leap even Superman couldn't make.

    150 was a typo. Should have been 1500.

    Gotcha.
  • kristen6350
    kristen6350 Posts: 1,094 Member
    asimmons26 wrote: »
    Most calorie strategies for weight loss have a downfall. The reason is all calories are not created equal. Your best bet is to just worry about eating clean and drinking half your body weight in ounces of water each day. Your BMR doesn't stay the same. (As you stated) The better fit or unfit you become you would need to recalculate everything. Temperature also changes your BMR so to go strictly off of a calculation like TDEE would need to be an estimate only. Don't even bother with that. Stay away from whites (rice, bread, pasta). These should only be eaten for special occasions. Replace these with Ezekiel bread, quinoa, etc. Get creative with your veggies, no butter. Your veggies should be the biggest portion on your plate.

    The OP lost me after this.

    What's wrong with butter? Last time I heard it wasn't a white carb. LOL

    Eat what you want to eat, in a calorie limit, and wait. That's the secret. Crazy, right?

    Good Lord.

  • heis4u2004
    heis4u2004 Posts: 176 Member
    Macros? Myfitnesspal has my protien set for 131 beforehand I exercise for the day. Is that what should aim for? I strive for around 100 grams and then I read that even 100 is too high and bad for you. I find I have more energy when I have some protein every few hours instead of a carb and I am not as hungry. (160 pound, 5 ft 2, body fat over 31%, female).
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,646 Member

    Only on MFP is this even a debate.


    People like to major in the minors here...it's often a quick snipe and not a full blown explanation of the mentality the "seasoned" users are trying to fight in perceived newbies, and often it comes out "wrong", I agree. The "oh, I must eat 100% clean to be healthy" mentality is one we might have seen fail in ourselves and friends.

    But ninerbuff kind of explained the mentality a lot of users "fight". Another of our mods explained how even a gummy bear is beneficial in context.

    No one, however, would argue that a donut is just as nutrient dense as broccoli.





  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    heis4u2004 wrote: »
    Macros? Myfitnesspal has my protien set for 131 beforehand I exercise for the day. Is that what should aim for? I strive for around 100 grams and then I read that even 100 is too high and bad for you. I find I have more energy when I have some protein every few hours instead of a carb and I am not as hungry. (160 pound, 5 ft 2, body fat over 31%, female).

    Where did you read that? It would only be bad if you had kidney issies. At your stats, 100g is probably about right
  • heis4u2004
    heis4u2004 Posts: 176 Member
    I think it was coming from a vegetarian's viewpoint.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    The primary function of food is to provide us with energy. Thus, calorie-dense foods are actually optimal for health. Ergo, donuts are a health food.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member


    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.

    Yes, I am saying its humorously ridiculous to say that 1500 calories of broccoli is healthier than 1500 calories of doughnuts.

    Further, I'd given a choice between eating nothing but 1500 daily calories broccoli and nothing but 1500 daily calories of doughnuts for the rest of your life, I would take the doughnuts because I would be healthier and live longer.

    And yes, this straw man argument is ridiculous *but* I argue that it does a decent job of demonstrating that context is important...nay, *essential* to understanding the healthfulness of a diet.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    WinoGelato 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.

    Well, you've admitted to the problem in your question. If you can't separate a food from it's context in a diet as a whole, there is no "healthier" option. There's room in someone's day for BOTH some broccoli and a donut.

    The thing is, none of this comes down to either ors, you've presented a false dilemma. It's one that's commonly brought up since the argument about dietary context is often ignored. How does that donut fit into one's consumption for the whole day? You might not need the fiber or other things, and might need some quick energy. The donut would be a better choice in that case.

    Context really matters.

    And there's the ultimate take-home point in the silly argument of extremes (that was admittedly my fault for raising).
  • megacrump
    megacrump Posts: 1 Member
    I'm at a plateau. Dropped 17 pounds, and stuck. I do cardio twice a day (morning 2 miles and afternoon 2 miles), I alternate leg day and arm day, I watch my intake on food and make better choices.

    How can I get past this? I've been stuck for about 3 weeks now. The scale hasn't moved.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    heis4u2004 wrote: »
    Macros? Myfitnesspal has my protien set for 131 beforehand I exercise for the day. Is that what should aim for? I strive for around 100 grams and then I read that even 100 is too high and bad for you. I find I have more energy when I have some protein every few hours instead of a carb and I am not as hungry. (160 pound, 5 ft 2, body fat over 31%, female).

    I'm 160lb female ..my protein minimum is 100g
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    auddii 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"?

    1500 calories of broccoli would be very unhealthy. I cannot begin to imagine the impact it would have on your digestive system.

    Once upon a time when this discussion was raised on an earlier thread, I proposed it would very possibly kill you or at least require hospitalization. Others disagreed strongly but I still stand by it.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    auddii 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"?

    1500 calories of broccoli would be very unhealthy. I cannot begin to imagine the impact it would have on your digestive system.

    Once upon a time when this discussion was raised on an earlier thread, I proposed it would very possibly kill you or at least require hospitalization. Others disagreed strongly but I still stand by it.

    1500 calories of brocolli and a cork might just do it
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    omsz8ig90mbl.png
This discussion has been closed.