The cleaner you eat, the less you enjoy processed flavours?!
Options
Replies
-
The book I was pulling nutritional content from cited the "Nutritionist Pro Nutrition Analysis Software v2.5, 3.1" as the source for showing that 100calories of broccoli contains 11g of protein while steak only contains 6g.
Since I'm not going to go and purchase that software to verify the information, I went to the USDA national nutrient database, which according to the software is the source for their database.
I posted a side by side comparison of each food below.
While it does not show broccoli having twice as much or "nearly" twice as much protein per 100 calories as steak, it still shows that broccoli actually does have more protein. There's this mindset that to get protein you have to eat meat, but it isn't true. Green vegetables have protein in them. When you take into account the vitamin and mineral content it becomes much easier to make a decision about what to eat.
Portions wise, for people who are struggling with their weight the larger amounts of vegetables make much more sense. I want to snack on something... eat some vegetables. I'm still hungry... eat more vegetables. The trick with vegetables is you can eat as much as you want. Why in the world would someone who is struggling with over eating want to eat 50g of steak for an intake of 100 calories when they could eat almost a pound of broccoli for the same caloric content, laughably superior nutritional content, and a full stomach. Obviously nobody is going to sit down and power eat a pound of raw broccoli. I put away a couple of pounds of vegetables a day, further augment my protein intake with legumes but I still at the end of the day close out typically with steamed tilapia, or chicken breast (once or twice a week). I limit my red meat intake to once a week but only if I'm craving it. If I'm craving something outside of my eating plan I have a meal a week that I allot to eating wtfever I want. But that's only if I'm craving it, if I'm not craving it then I don't. It's just built into the system as a steam vent so I don't go crazy.
Again, this is what works for me and it doesn't imply it is going to work for everyone. I don't do moderation, I have no tolerance for it. If you're an addict, you're an addict and I've never seen someone smoking crack in moderation. The only way I have had any success in negating the cravings for foods which are ultimately detrimental to my health are to replace them with something else. When I'm fit and active it is a completely different story but when I'm in the process of slogging off 100+ lbs and getting my high (unmedicated) blood pressure down, I don't have time to live in fairy tale land where going and eating pizza in moderation is just fine.
According to this:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2871?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=broccoli
100 calories of broccoli has 8.34g of protein
and http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/7323?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=top+sirlon
Top sirlon beef would have 14.91g of protein per 100 calories, or almost twice as much.
This is also ignoring the fact that 100 calories of beef is less than 2 ounces; while 100 calories of broccoli is about three cups worth. To get the equivalent protein from less than 2 ounces of beef, one would need to consume almost 5 1/2 cups of broccoli.
Now I love broccoli, but if you think I'm going to down 20+ cups of it, vs eating an 8 oz steak...0 -
This is the entry for "broccoli, raw" which is above "broccoli, frozen" that you chose to show.
0 -
Thank you @juggernaut1974 and @stevencloser for pointing that out... saved me the trouble. I've been lurking, because I find threads like this highly entertaining, but it gets my goat when someone presents data in that way. You can't compare frozen broccoli to a fatty cut of beef no matter how delicious both are. They can each have their place in a well-rounded diet, and if you choose to abstain from/partake of either (for whatever reason), it's not going to cause you catastrophic harm - or change your palate (though eating 5 cups of broccoli on a regular basis might
). 0 -
I love this has become a "steak V broccoli" debate, not one I ever thought I'd see!!0
-
Is it just me? The less processed foods I eat the less I enjoy them. Even down to my protein shake, the false strawberry just tasted horrible today! I guess it's good that I'd rather eat an omlette than a doughnut (same cals!) But it can be annoying when out with friends as it's hard to not look like a food snob in restaurants! !
I agree sorta, but when I think of processed food I think of Lean Cuisine and other frozen meals. Beyond that, ehh, anything goes.0 -
I love this has become a "steak V broccoli" debate, not one I ever thought I'd see!!
That's the difficulty with "clean eating" discussions...one man's perfectly awesome and nutritious food is another man's filth...
The general lack of nutritional knowledge doesn't help much either.0 -
Well, this was basically mooted by the posts while I was writing it, but to add to them anyway:
Another issue with the steak comparison is that there are numerous cuts called "steak" by the USDA. Here are two showing the key difference (fat content):
23601, Beef, tenderloin, steak, separable lean only, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, raw
100 grams=22 g protein; 100 calories=15 g protein
13917, Beef, tenderloin, steak, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades, raw
100 grams=20 g protein; 100 calories=8 g protein
For broccoli:
11090, Broccoli, raw
100 grams=3 g protein; 100 calories=8 g protein
So for just 30 grams of protein (say one meal), I could eat 136 g (raw) of the leaner steak, which would be about 208 calories. Makes sense as part of a balanced dinner with some vegetables and maybe a starch.
Or, I could eat 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of broccoli. Yes, this would also get me only 340 calories and likely fill me up for a while (I expect I would have a stomach ache). But why is this a good thing? I need about 2100 calories for maintenance and I'm on the smaller side (5'3 woman).0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I love this has become a "steak V broccoli" debate, not one I ever thought I'd see!!
That's the difficulty with "clean eating" discussions...one man's perfectly awesome and nutritious food is another man's filth...
The general lack of nutritional knowledge doesn't help much either.
I just wanted to vent that I'm a bit sad I dont get excited by chicken nuggets or prawn cocktail crisps anymore to be honest lol but yes, I should have known better from these boards what can of worms I was unleashing! I'm sure everyone who logs has some degree of nutritional knowledge though just through observation of what's in your diary
0 -
I was actually just saying to my partner yesterday that the less junk I eat, the better it tastes when I do have it. not sure why. it makes it more like a treat though which helps with only eating it once in a while.0
-
Is it just me? The less processed foods I eat the less I enjoy them. Even down to my protein shake, the false strawberry just tasted horrible today! I guess it's good that I'd rather eat an omlette than a doughnut (same cals!) But it can be annoying when out with friends as it's hard to not look like a food snob in restaurants! !
I must admit i enjoy it even more.
I eat a balanced diet...so everything
Last week going out for 2 days...one ended in a buffet the other one Burger King...
I pigged out and didn't regret anything.
From the Chinese food at the buffet till the next day Burger Kings fries chicken fries Hamburger and huge Oreo shake.... Heaven!
and i will do it all again when we go out lol
And yes i do like my veggies and fruit and all the so called "healthy" stuff But i like all the "unhealthy" too.
So i eat it all...in moderation!
And that is not unhealthy, but normal life and enjoying the heck out of it while not gaining weight.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
Some of those items probably have "natural" strawberry flavor though -- my point is that the "artificiality" of the flavor probably isn't an issue (unless you're using in a different way than usual).
You may like strawberries, but dislike strawberry-flavored items (whether that flavor is natural or artificial).
I'll disagree.
I can tell the difference between naturally flavored and artificially flavored items for at least some flavors. Vanilla is a big one - I can distinguish real vanilla extract or vanilla bean paste from vanillin a mile away. So is orange. I actually prefer artificial orange flavoring to the mix or natural orange oils and extracts they use to flavor orange juice these days. I can definitely tell artificial marshmallow flavoring from real marshmallow even with real marshmallows present (Toll House hot cocoa cookies - couldn't eat them, the filling tasted too 'off' even with real marshmallows throughout)
I'm not talking about vanilla extract though -- I'm talking about ingredients like "natural flavor" that are vanilla flavored. I can also taste the difference between vanilla and vanillin.
I can distinguish those as 'not vanilla extract/paste' as well. In my head, I tend to lump those in with artificial flavorings even though the components are natural. I can distinguish between natural vanilla flavoring and vanillin, too. Vanillin is really far off of what it should taste like. Natural vanilla flavoring is still not right but less harsh tasting than vanillin and lacking the complexity of actual vanilla.
Basically, for some flavors I can tell the difference between a flavor made mainly from the actual thing, and a flavoring put together by humans to mimic the taste of that thing regardless of the naturalness or artificiality of the components. It doesn't say anything about which I prefer for a particular flavoring, though.
I think being able to distinguish between an actual ingredient and a flavoring is pretty common. I'm talking about what was mentioned above -- the ability to distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor. That's what I'm skeptical about.
If someone told me they could distinguish between natural strawberry flavor (which was created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally entitled to the natural designation) and artificial strawberry flavor (which was also created in a lab and doesn't include any component of strawberries but is legally obligated to be labelled "artificial"), I would be skeptical.
Setting aside oils and extracts and all that, I don't think the human palate can distinguish between a natural and an artificial flavor with any degree of reliability.
Oh, that's not what I was talking about - I meant real strawberries (or strawberry juice) which originated in a garden vs artificial strawberry flavor created in a lab.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »"clean eating" phrase? Who came up with this?
This is a question I tried to answer for myself a while ago. An internet search didn't provide any answers. It's been around for a really long time. It may not be older than me but I heard the phrase long before I heard of the internet. I seem to associate it with hippies.
I had not, however, ever heard the term "dirty food" until I joined MFP.
Likewise, until I started participating on the MFP forums, I never heard processed food to mean anything other than Ultra Processed food as defined here http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »"clean eating" phrase? Who came up with this?
This is a question I tried to answer for myself a while ago. An internet search didn't provide any answers. It's been around for a really long time. It may not be older than me but I heard the phrase long before I heard of the internet. I seem to associate it with hippies.
I had not, however, ever heard the term "dirty food" until I joined MFP.
Likewise, until I started participating on the MFP forums, I never heard processed food to mean anything other than Ultra Processed food as defined here http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf
And I'd never heard it used in a way that would exclude dried pasta or bakery bread or, of course, canned tomatoes and cottage cheese and smoked salmon.
Maybe because the processed but not ultra-processed foods are most of the processed foods I eat, and because I did go through a (dumb) phase where I tried to avoid even those as much as possible, it never crossed my mind that someone wouldn't be including them when referring to processed. I mostly ignore the most ultra-processed stuff in the supermarket (pre made meals and boxed egg rolls and such) -- so much that when I walked by the other day (to grab some ice cream, which is a processed or ultra processed food I like) I was surprised at the variety of things and don't know what the specific nutritional facts are in any of them, although I would bet that there's quite a variety (and I personally never buy a food with a label without reading the label anyway).0 -
-
Mapalicious wrote: »GMOs help save the world.
Organic crops help upper class white people feel unjustifiably better about themselves.
GMOs are a technology that is vastly over-used, under-tested, and making some rich and others poor, and is a political tool. The technology could be used for good. They are by no means "saving the world."
Organic...yes, you hit the nail on the head. It makes people feel better about themselves. But it also helps us consume less cancer-causing pesticides on average, which is pretty sweet.
Organic farmers can use a wide variety of pesticides actually.
GMO's are in fact already saving the world, by greatly increasing yields for farmers, easier adoption of reduced/no till farming which reduces emissions, and aiding soil retention. They would be even more effective if people (many funded by huge organic backers like whole foods) stopped fear mongering about them and we trusted the science, instead of blogger's naturalistic fallacies.
Not the thread for this discussion though. My apologies.0 -
I actually find that I like some processed foods, or at least enjoy them, even better now. I think mentally I'm less afraid of them since I'm in control of my intake and try to get 80% of my diet from minimally processed, nutrient dense foods.0
-
If the processed flavour is added sugars, fats, and/or salt, I do think by limiting these, foods must be made flavourful in other ways, like roasting, searing, garlic, peppered, spiced. I find vegetables on their own are much tastier if they are fresh or naturally strong flavoured. Like parsnips.
Home seared steak is marvellously whole, natural, and tasty.
Reduce fat, salt and sugar long enough and you will notice it in manufactured foods. A sensitized palate may no longer appreciate the overpowering taste.0 -
So for that example. ... The more actual strawberries I eat, the less I enjoy false strawberry flavours ( and I used to adore it, strawberry center chocs, strawberry icecream, strawberry yoghurt etc) which was sad when I got excited about a strawberry milkshake the other day and really it wasn't as nice as I remember.
What brands of yogurt have artificial strawberry flavor? I wanted to do a blind taste test but couldn't find any in the supermarket. (I didn't look at any low cal brands / brands with artificial sweetener as I would detect this.)0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »GMOs help save the world.
Organic crops help upper class white people feel unjustifiably better about themselves.
GMOs are a technology that is vastly over-used, under-tested, and making some rich and others poor, and is a political tool. The technology could be used for good. They are by no means "saving the world."
Organic...yes, you hit the nail on the head. It makes people feel better about themselves. But it also helps us consume less cancer-causing pesticides on average, which is pretty sweet.
Organic farmers can use a wide variety of pesticides actually...
Pesticides are not equally toxic. I have no qualms about using Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to control cabbage worm.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
...Bt proteins has been used in many organic farms for over 50 years as a microbial pest control agent (MCPA). Bt proteins are allowed in organic farming as a insecticide because Bt is a natural, non-pathogenic bacterium that is found naturally in the soil. Bt has also been found to be safe to all higher animals tested.
Bt strains account for nearly 90% of the world MPCA market. Most of the Bt products contain insecticidal crystal proteins (ICP) and viable spores (spores that can produce live bacteria). The ICPs are responsible for insect toxicity. ICPs are usually biologically inactive within hours or days. A few products contain inactivated spores.
Typical agricultural formulations include wettable powders, spray concentrates, liquid concentrates, dusts, baits, and time release rings. Bt formulations may be applied to foliage, soil, water environments or food storage facilities. There are many different strains of Bt used, each specific to different insects. Because Bt is species specific, beneficial and non-target insects are usually not harmed...
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/synthetic_pesticide.html
...The use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture comes with a cost for the environment, and the health of animals and humans.
Danger of synthetic pesticide
The synthetic pesticide DDT was widely used in urban aerial sprays to control urban mosquito, gypsy moth, Japanese beetle and other insects in the 1940’s. By 1972, DDT was banned from the United States due to widespread development of resistance to DDT and evidence that DDT use was increasing preterm births and also harming the environment. DDT was found to cause behavioral anomalies and eggshell thinning in populations of bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Although DDT is banned in the US and many other countries, DDT continues to be manufactured and applied in underdeveloped nations where some of the US food supply is grown.
Dursban, one of the most common pesticide used in households, schools, hospitals and agriculture was banned in 2000 by the USEPA due to unacceptable health risk, especially to children. Toxicology studies have found that exposures to Dursban early in life may affect the function of the nervous system later in life, with possilbe links to changes in normal learning and behavior. Yet, six manufacturers in the US are allowed to continue making the chemical for use on foreign crops.
Types of synthetic pesticide
There are many classes of synthetic pesticides. The main classes consist of organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids. Exposure to pesticides can cause acute (short term) or chronic (long term) effects on animals and humans, especially in the reproductive, endocrine, and central nervous systems.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K 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
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions