There are 'BAD' foods
Options
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
Those are bad right? Potatoes I mean? Or only when they are potato chips. I get confused..._Terrapin_ wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
I think it is fair to say she did this using <2,000 calories which for me is barely my BMR. Gosh, this is a pretty cool diary thanks Happy Camper.. This month's Mens Health had a blurp about potatoes written by some well known lad. What was the guy's name? Give me a minute.
Now if I can find a way to increase my potato consumption in a way that would benefit me (since potatoes are a food that raises blood sugar significantly, and I already mentioned my blood sugar regulation is not perfect). I do actually eat potatoes regularly as it is.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have to say, good job! I guess it's fair to say that without potatoes (whether white or sweet), it's quite a challenge, considering that made up almost one quarter of your total intake.HappyCampr1 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'd love to see a diary of someone who is getting in 4700 mg of potassium from food alone.
Not quite there, but since I thought I should be aiming for 3600 as listed in my goals I feel pretty good about this. Considering I'm eating at a pound a week loss at this intake, I think this is pretty darned close to your request. I'm sure if I had more calories I could have squeezed an additional couple hundred mg of potassium into my day. Or maybe I should have skipped my Tostitos and leftover Christmas cookie and eaten another banana. If I'd known there would be a test, I might have considered that.
I think it is fair to say she did this using <2,000 calories which for me is barely my BMR. Gosh, this is a pretty cool diary thanks Happy Camper.. This month's Mens Health had a blurp about potatoes written by some well known lad. What was the guy's name? Give me a minute.
It's quite simple on 3500-3600 calories. Apparently those TDEEs are quite rare despite most of my friends list of, the guys anyway, are up in that range.
One more for the #proofisinthepudding pool.
I'd have to increase miles in the saddle or swimming. Hmmmm...who knew? Increase workouts, eat more stuff. Nah, has to be something other then this.
0 -
It's true that weight loss is mediated by CICO and that if you're otherwise healthy, it doesn't matter what you eat if your goal is to lose weight. But take the long view: some foods promote inflammation, other foods fight inflammation with their rich content of omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, vitamins probiotic bacterial strains, prebiotic fibers, etc. If you eat pro-inflammatory foods, you won't necessarily get sick, but your risk of illness goes up.
And if you develop a condition whose onset is associated with chronic inflammation, like depression (in which inflammation is obviously implicated, and which some researchers believe to be driven entirely by cytokines from the inflammatory response), you're probably going to gain weight. If you get leaky gut, you're going to gain weight. If you get cancer, your weight is going to be the least of your concerns. In this sense, there are bad foods for weight loss, because it isn't merely the case that being overweight undermines your health. The causal arrow can run the other way, too.
I'm not trying to be alarmist, because even with a *kitten* diet it's true that your odds of developing these conditions are much lower than your odds of remaining basically healthy. I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal. Don't take it for granted that these things can't happen to you, because they happen all the time to people who have never had prior medical problems. And don't take it for granted that medical conditions are unrelated to your body composition goals.0 -
schibsted750 wrote: »I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal.
No... Still disagree. If your macros and micros are on point, your diet is optimal...I don't care how you got there. A person who goes over RDAs and pee out more vitamins and minerals aren't more optimal...but it's fitting since this debate always turns into a pissing contest anyway.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Phew...just remembered the guy's name. Alan Aragon. I wonder if Alan realizes the dangers of potatoes?
Who? Aragon??? Pfffft, he's one of those IIFYM guys, I'll bet he eats them there "bad" foods.
...or then again, maybe he's well-known and respected as a science/evidence-based nutrition and training guy who cuts through all the woo and BS, and runs a website with a monthly research review section which many nutritionists and trainers actually pay money to subscribe to. Yeah, he's one of the few who are worth listening to.schibsted750 wrote: »<snip>
...I'm not trying to be alarmist, because even with a *kitten* diet it's true that your odds of developing these conditions are much lower than your odds of remaining basically healthy. I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal. Don't take it for granted that these things can't happen to you, because they happen all the time to people who have never had prior medical problems. And don't take it for granted that medical conditions are unrelated to your body composition goals.
I won't spend my life jumping at shadows every time some crackpot with an agenda comes up with a new nutrient/food to demonize based on some half-baked pseudoscience. Most of this thread is all about "dem feelz", and "dem feelz" aren't science.
I don't agree with the bolded either. As Eric Helms (another well-known and respected evidence-based nutrition/training researcher and a competitive bodybuilder himself) says, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food".0 -
I read Aragon and respect his views. He definitely cuts through woo and BS with ease. In a magazine filled with BS like "actor gains 25 pounds of muscle in 4 months" etc, it is refreshing to see people I respect write about nutrition.0
-
JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
Obesity is not simply caused simply by overeating. Sugar and highly palatable foods interfere with our natural signals of fullness and satiation. A healthy body seeks to maintain its natural weight, and there are all sorts of biomechanical processes that regulate metabolism, hunger, and appetite in order to do so. When you consume highly palatable sugary foods that release dopamine, you are overriding your body's natural fullness signals.
Yes, yes it is.
As for the rest of what you said:
Total fiction. Sugar doesn't trick your brain into thinking your still hungry.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
So foods without enough potassium are the bad ones?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »Completely agree, it's madness to suggest there are no such things as bad foods. Processed meats are not what I would call good for us and our countries (UK) over reliance on frozen foods and microwavable meals is beyond healthy. We don't have the 3rd highest rate of excess weight because we over eat healthy foods.
But even if everybody overate "healthy" foods, you'd still have the same rate of obesity and associated metabolic issues. Overeating is overeating and obesity is obesity.
Obesity is not simply caused simply by overeating. Sugar and highly palatable foods interfere with our natural signals of fullness and satiation. A healthy body seeks to maintain its natural weight, and there are all sorts of biomechanical processes that regulate metabolism, hunger, and appetite in order to do so. When you consume highly palatable sugary foods that release dopamine, you are overriding your body's natural fullness signals.
Yes, yes it is.
As for the rest of what you said:
Total fiction. Sugar doesn't trick your brain into thinking your still hungry.
I don't think he meant it like that, I think it's more of a "I don't feel hungry but I don't care it's delicious". As for my own personal experience with highly processed carby deliciousness, I just don't feel full. I could keep eating and eating breads and pasta and not get a "stop" signal that I get with things like meat and vegetables. I am currently taking Wellbutrin, which has curbed my emotional eating. HOWEVER, even though I can "see" the line between hunger and fullness, and when stress is triggering it, I can still cross that line and stuff my face even though I'm not hungry.
I think it's totally subjective, just telling my own point of view. Sugar and high carb foods for me is something that is delicious but will never satisfy. Heck, even OATMEAL doesn't satisfy.0 -
GoldenLuv23 wrote: »Of course highly processed foods filled with chemicals are bad. What idiot would argue with that?
What's the difference between slightly processed and highly processed? How many steps in the process before it hurts me? And how exactly does the processing affect my health or the "goodness" of the food? Are they offering it to idols?
And what are these mysterious deadly chemicals and what will they do to me?0 -
schibsted750 wrote: »I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal.
No... Still disagree. If your macros and micros are on point, your diet is optimal...I don't care how you got there. A person who goes over RDAs and pee out more vitamins and minerals aren't more optimal...but it's fitting since this debate always turns into a pissing contest anyway.
and i am the Queen of England0 -
Not necessarily.Carlos_421 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As for the multivitamin, yes that is true, although one would miss out on other components that certain foods (particularly fruits and vegetables) provide.rankinsect wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Aside from those with very high calorie requirements (over 3500 calories a day), it's extremely difficult to get 100% of every single micronutrient and still eat those foods.
Well, firstly you could just take a multivitamin and be done with it - that is pretty much assured to get you to your RDAs on vitamins and minerals.
Secondly, though, it's not nearly as hard to meet your micronutrients as most people think, at least over time. The whole "micro" point is that only very small amounts are needed. You also don't need to meet every RDA every single day, but average over time.
When it comes to magnesium and potassium, those are very tricky to meet the RDAs from food alone. I've heard it said on here that because those nutrients aren't listed in many foods, a lot of people probably meet the recommendations. However, looking at a lot of the diaries from others on here, I have a hard time believing that.
So foods without enough potassium are the bad ones?
0 -
schibsted750 wrote: »I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal.
No... Still disagree. If your macros and micros are on point, your diet is optimal...I don't care how you got there. A person who goes over RDAs and pee out more vitamins and minerals aren't more optimal...but it's fitting since this debate always turns into a pissing contest anyway.
and i am the Queen of England
Nope, you're wrong again...0 -
schibsted750 wrote: »I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal.
No... Still disagree. If your macros and micros are on point, your diet is optimal...I don't care how you got there. A person who goes over RDAs and pee out more vitamins and minerals aren't more optimal...but it's fitting since this debate always turns into a pissing contest anyway.
and i am the Queen of England
Hi Liz. He's right, whether you passive aggressively tell him you don't believe it Or not.0 -
schibsted750 wrote: »I'm just saying that if someone wants to maximize their chance of successful health and weight maintenance, there are obviously "bad" and "good" foods, and even if 80% of your diet is solid, the 20% indulgence is still suboptimal.
No... Still disagree. If your macros and micros are on point, your diet is optimal...I don't care how you got there. A person who goes over RDAs and pee out more vitamins and minerals aren't more optimal...but it's fitting since this debate always turns into a pissing contest anyway.
and i am the Queen of England
Are you still wondering if protein powder is processed?
I think QE2 probably gets that it is.0 -
Not "dangerous", but can "lead to higher risk for cancer".suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
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
0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
How's the UK government's record on nutritional advice? Did they spend decades insisting that eating fat makes you fat and that cholesterol in your food elevates your cholesterol in your blood, the way the U.S. government did?0 -
suziecue20 wrote: »I see lots of posts stating that there are no 'bad' foods but if this is the case why do we have expressions like 'naughty but nice' when we have eaten something scrumptious we know we shouldn't have?
Saying that the fact that some people label certain foods "naughty but nice" proves that it's appropriate to call those foods "bad" is begging the question, or circular reasoning, if you prefer. Your "proof" makes the same assumption (that it's right to put a blanket value-judgment label on a food) as the thing you're trying to prove.
0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
This is the way people phrase it when they want to scare you. When they want to give you information that puts it in perspective, they say if you don't eat processed and cured meat at all, you have a small chance of getting colorectal cancer. If you eat 50 g of processed meat a day every day, you have a small but slightly higher risk. You move from about 5% to about 6% risk (5 X 1.18 = 5.9).
Governments want to scare people like this, because that extra 1% of the overall population getting colorectal cancer is a small but meaningful part of the national health costs, which they are trying desperately to hold in check.
I practice a lot of health and safety behaviors that the government has campaigned for over the years (never drink and drive, always wear my seat belt, get exercise, don't smoke, eat whole grains), but I'm not going to give bacon up entirely because eating it every day would increase my cancer risk by one percentage point. (Heck, I don't usually eat 50 g of bacon when I do eat it -- practically never if that's cooked weight. I have a pound and a half of bacon in my refrigerator that I bought before Christmas thinking I might be serving a big breakfast over the holidays, and it never got opened. I need to decide soon whether to stick it in the freezer unopened or have a little before I freeze it.0 -
ClicquotBubbles wrote: »suziecue20 wrote: »The UK Government has just labelled ALL processed meats, including bacon and sausages as being dangerous to health [cancer causing] so how can they not be bad?
When did that happen? I must have totally missed it and I do read the Daily Fail. Surely it would have been a headline?
There is increasing scientific evidence that eating cured meats can significantly increase your risk for cancer.
Statistically significantly. Not necessarily significantly. The effect size is negligible, I believe.
Here is what I read: "50g portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk for colorectal cancer by about 18%, and that 100 g of red meat could increase the risk for colorectal cancer by 18%."
Now factor in the base rate of bowel cancer and math it out. For argument's sake, let's say you have an approximately 1% chance of getting bowel cancer. Eating 50g of processed meat or 100g of red meat EVERY DAY raises your risk to still less than a 2% chance.
I absolutely agree. A 1% increase in my risk of cancer is significant enough for me to not eat processed meats anymore. It may not be significant enough for you to take it out of your diet. We bring our values to our food. That was the point of my first post.
Did you look at how much you'd need to eat, and how frequently, and for how long? Two strips of bacon on Sunday with pancakes and syrup (real maple syrup, mind you, not that fake crap) is just not that bad.
I did. Like I said, its not a guarantee that it will cause cancer but I dont enjoy bacon enough to increase my risk of cancer by consuming it.
That's how I feel about celery.
"Naturally" cured "nitrate free"* bacon gets its nitrates from celery juice. Celery isn't really worth the risk.
*except for naturally occurring nitrates in vegetables.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions