Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Are all calories the same??

18911131417

Replies

  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you can get sufficient vegetables with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
    edited March 2016
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    You are assuming my logging is complete, which as I have stated it is not. So your statement is invalid.

    I believe the WHO recommend 5 portions = 400 grams a day of "fruitandvegetables". I often hit that. If I choose to eat something else that's not because it's impossible. I would say I typically have 300g with dinner. There's 330g in that lunch above (I had the other half with dinner the night before).

    What is the justification for 70% of the population not meeting it despite the 55% carbohydrate dietary advice ?
    edited March 2016
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    You are assuming my logging is complete, which as I have stated it is not. So your statement is invalid.

    I believe the WHO recommend 5 portions = 400 grams a day of "fruitandvegetables". I often hit that. If I choose to eat something else that's not because it's impossible. I would say I typically have 300g with dinner.

    What is the justification for 70% of the population not meeting it despite the 55% carbohydrate dietary advice ?

    It would be invalid, yes. I just assumed that someone who was trying to stay below a certain carb limit would want to, I don't know, track that metric. My mistake.

    I still don't understand what the general public's poor adherence to proper nutritional guidelines has to do with this conversation. We're talking about people who try to limit carbs to 5%, which does not include the general public. Are you're basically saying it's okay to not meet vegetable serving recommendations because most people don't?
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,247Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,247Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    yarwell wrote: »
    You are assuming my logging is complete, which as I have stated it is not. So your statement is invalid.

    I believe the WHO recommend 5 portions = 400 grams a day of "fruitandvegetables". I often hit that. If I choose to eat something else that's not because it's impossible. I would say I typically have 300g with dinner.

    What is the justification for 70% of the population not meeting it despite the 55% carbohydrate dietary advice ?

    It would be invalid, yes. I just assumed that someone who was trying to stay below a certain carb limit would want to, I don't know, track that metric. My mistake.

    I still don't understand what the general public's poor adherence to proper nutritional guidelines has to do with this conversation. We're talking about people who try to limit carbs to 5%, which does not include the general public. Are you're basically saying it's okay to not meet vegetable serving recommendations because most people don't?

    Actually, IIRC, the OP is are all calories the same.. this veggie argument was brought in later.
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    You are assuming my logging is complete, which as I have stated it is not. So your statement is invalid.

    I believe the WHO recommend 5 portions = 400 grams a day of "fruitandvegetables". I often hit that. If I choose to eat something else that's not because it's impossible. I would say I typically have 300g with dinner.

    What is the justification for 70% of the population not meeting it despite the 55% carbohydrate dietary advice ?

    It would be invalid, yes. I just assumed that someone who was trying to stay below a certain carb limit would want to, I don't know, track that metric. My mistake.

    I still don't understand what the general public's poor adherence to proper nutritional guidelines has to do with this conversation. We're talking about people who try to limit carbs to 5%, which does not include the general public. Are you're basically saying it's okay to not meet vegetable serving recommendations because most people don't?

    Actually, IIRC, the OP is are all calories the same.. this veggie argument was brought in later.

    Yep, and we're 7 pages later and conversations have split off into various subtopics, including the one I'm referencing about the need to get calories from varied sources which should include appropriate amounts of vegetables and how difficult that is to do while keeping carbs at 5%.
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    If you're referencing rat hairs on crops, that is actually B-12, based on stories about people from India that followed vegetarian diets that moved to Britain. It probably isn't rat hair, but actually insect parts, including body waste that provides B-12 on crops in those instances, while in Britain the crops have less waste and insect parts to them.
    Scurvy is from a lack of Vitamin C, although the 1700s discovery of the phenomena didn't lead to understanding vitamins as the only discovery was that citrus fruits prevented scurvy, not that such fruit contains vitamin C. True discovery of vitamins goes to thiamine discovered in treating BeriBeri, also in sailors.

    Basically, don't be a sailor in the 1800s or earlier is good dietary advice.
    edited March 2016
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,633Member Member Posts: 7,633Member Member
    Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    Wait, I'm confused. Are we arguing because people don't like vegetables and they should? Who cares if people eat veggies or not?
  • ClosetBayesianClosetBayesian Posts: 834Member Member Posts: 834Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    Rats are apparently a good source of Vitamin C. Low carb, too.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 20,809Member Member Posts: 20,809Member Member
    Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?

    Saying all *calories* are the same isn't the same thing as saying all macros are the same.

    Calories, as a unit of energy, are the same. But it's also true that we require certain amounts of macro- and micro-nutrients in order to maintain our health. It's two different conversations.
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    While that may technically be true, people can and do die from vitamin deficiencies, which can easily be consumed in fruits and vegetables. I think that's the point, here.
  • auddiiauddii Posts: 15,410Member Member Posts: 15,410Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    If you're referencing rat hairs on crops, that is actually B-12, based on stories about people from India that followed vegetarian diets that moved to Britain. It probably isn't rat hair, but actually insect parts, including body waste that provides B-12 on crops in those instances, while in Britain the crops have less waste and insect parts to them.
    Scurvy is from a lack of Vitamin C, although the 1700s discovery of the phenomena didn't lead to understanding vitamins as the only discovery was that citrus fruits prevented scurvy, not that such fruit contains vitamin C. True discovery of vitamins goes to thiamine discovered in treating BeriBeri, also in sailors.

    Basically, don't be a sailor in the 1800s or earlier is good dietary advice.

    I believe they are referring to the fact that rats can produce vitamin C unlike humans, and I believe there are sailors who supplemented their diets with rat and did not get scurvy. Although I can't remember who that was.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    Rats are apparently a good source of Vitamin C. Low carb, too.

    Not if cooked. The vitamin C part.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    auddii wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    If you're referencing rat hairs on crops, that is actually B-12, based on stories about people from India that followed vegetarian diets that moved to Britain. It probably isn't rat hair, but actually insect parts, including body waste that provides B-12 on crops in those instances, while in Britain the crops have less waste and insect parts to them.
    Scurvy is from a lack of Vitamin C, although the 1700s discovery of the phenomena didn't lead to understanding vitamins as the only discovery was that citrus fruits prevented scurvy, not that such fruit contains vitamin C. True discovery of vitamins goes to thiamine discovered in treating BeriBeri, also in sailors.

    Basically, don't be a sailor in the 1800s or earlier is good dietary advice.

    I believe they are referring to the fact that rats can produce vitamin C unlike humans, and I believe there are sailors who supplemented their diets with rat and did not get scurvy. Although I can't remember who that was.

    Many mammals can produce vitamin c. Primates and guinea pigs tend to be the exception as frugivore diets eliminate the need to produce it.
  • mccindy72mccindy72 Posts: 7,020Member Member Posts: 7,020Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    Rats are apparently a good source of Vitamin C. Low carb, too.

    Not if cooked. The vitamin C part.

    I'm sure the worms give lots of extra fiber.
Sign In or Register to comment.