For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Replies
-
The weather example is interesting. Considering that I'm probably the biggest weather geek in this thread, I will say that I enjoy following/tracking major weather events that many others do not, such as a hurricane making landfall or a threat of tornadoes.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says once in a while. Remember no bad foods.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.
That's great. I would bet my house that of the 70% of Americans that are overweight or obese and not trying to lose are eating more of the occasionally foods than recommended.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.
That's great. I would bet my house that of the 70% of Americans that are overweight or obese and not trying to lose are eating more of the occasionally foods than recommended.
I agree. A lot of people think there are so many arbitrary rules to losing weight, they give up. Just pointing out, it's all about the calorie intake and tweaking macros to suit their needs.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.
That's great. I would bet my house that of the 70% of Americans that are overweight or obese and not trying to lose are eating more of the occasionally foods than recommended.
I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.
That's great. I would bet my house that of the 70% of Americans that are overweight or obese and not trying to lose are eating more of the occasionally foods than recommended.
I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
The chart is developed by people with PHD after their names. It's a free country and of course you can disagree.
Find some peer reviewed information that says someone should be eating ice cream candy sausage every day.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.
That's great. I would bet my house that of the 70% of Americans that are overweight or obese and not trying to lose are eating more of the occasionally foods than recommended.
I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
The chart is developed by people with PHD after their names. It's a free country and of course you can disagree.
Find some peer reviewed information that says someone should be eating ice cream candy sausage every day.
Phd was behind the names of many of those who came up with the low fat agenda. I agree with that.
I don't eat candy or ice cream. I avoid grains and sugar. Sausages though? I eat it a few days per week. It agrees with me. But no, I am not looking for peer reviewed information to say that I should eat it. I have read enough nutrition science to know what works for my body, what doesn't and why.0 -
There's a good deal of activism among government employees of the PhD and non-PhD variety. The FDA's food guidelines very nearly included "environmental impact" as a labelling requirement.0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says occasionally. Remember no bad foods.
I did read it. I lost all my weight and now in maintenance eating those things on the list. Trust me, I'm old school, it was hard to wrap my brain eating higher fat. I had elevated cholestoral levels and the doctor wanted to put me on statins. My blood tests are perfect now. I eat everything in moderation.
That's great. I would bet my house that of the 70% of Americans that are overweight or obese and not trying to lose are eating more of the occasionally foods than recommended.
I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
The chart is developed by people with PHD after their names. It's a free country and of course you can disagree.
Find some peer reviewed information that says someone should be eating ice cream candy sausage every day.
Phd was behind the names of many of those who came up with the low fat agenda. I agree with that.
I don't eat candy or ice cream. I avoid grains and sugar. Sausages though? I eat it a few days per week. It agrees with me. But no, I am not looking for peer reviewed information to say that I should eat it. I have read enough nutrition science to know what works for my body, what doesn't and why.
Again thats great you feel good. I posted this as a reasonable alternative to the bad food designation. You not the chart doesn't say anything is off limits, just gives suggested intake ranges.0 -
My maintenance calories will only occasionally support the foods on the Whoa list. If I eat the items on the Whoa list more than occasionally, I will either gain weight, not have the nutrients my body needs or be hungry. Sometimes all 3 at once!
Isn't that true for everyone no matter how many calories they have available?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Read the chart again. It says once in a while. Remember no bad foods.
I don't mind the breakdown in theory, thinking of foods as those to include liberally, those to included in more measured amounts, and those to have once in a while. I definitely prefer that approach to good/bad, and it's basically how I think of it.
The actual list seems a little over-inclusive as to what's a WHOA, and I actually do think a lot of advice from nutrition experts is still somewhat fat phobic and overbroad (likely based on the understanding that most people won't follow it that well). For example, I have a vegetable 2-egg omelet with a little feta cheese cooked in a bit of olive oil most mornings. That chart would call that a WHOA food (whole eggs cooked in oil, cheese). It's about 250 calories, very filling, has a decent amount of protein (I often add another source of protein on the side), and gives me lots of vegetables.
Do you really think it makes sense to call that a WHOA food? (I could find a lot of similar examples too.)
And to go back to Evgeni's example, it struck me as pretty common, in Europe, for people to eat smallish breakfasts by US standards largely consisting of refined carbs and coffee. In France, they tend to eat more sat fat than we are advised to, also. And yet those countries lag behind us on the obesity rate -- and I'd argue in part because the food culture is better and not focused on nutritionism. If you eat foods you appreciate in a sensible way, you are probably more likely to eat less and be satisfied on a sensible number of calories.
Anyway, I like to focus on overall diet, not individual food choices. I intuitively know that makes some foods, for me, a harder to fit in or rarer option (including many of the things listed, like french fries). Cheese would be if I had to eat huge amounts when I eat it, but if I have a little and don't end up with extra calories or sat fat, why would it be? Same with roasted chicken breast with skin, which I eat regularly.0 -
My maintenance calories will only occasionally support the foods on the Whoa list. If I eat the items on the Whoa list more than occasionally, I will either gain weight, not have the nutrients my body needs or be hungry. Sometimes all 3 at once!
Isn't that true for everyone no matter how many calories they have available?
A constant calorie surplus will lead to being overweight regardless of which column the calories come from.
How many a person has available will be an individual thing.
Someone who exercised intensely and has a large amount of calories that they can eat and still be in a deficit can eat more of the whoa foods if they want.
Someone who is sedentary would have less wiggle room with calories and therefore would have to eat those sparingly or risk going over.
0 -
I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...0 -
I love the weather comparison. It shows the point exactly. Weather is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you feel about it or react to it.
I love snow. I love a snowstorm that stops the whole city from functioning. One of my coworkers hates snow with a passion.
She hates being cold. I hate being warm. There is no universal good or bad weather for the both of us.
I used to love thunderstorms. I would sit and watch them. Then I was in a bombing and now I hate thunderstorms and they make my skin crawl. So, did the qualities of thunderstorms change? Or is it me who changed? Do I tell the person upthread how bad thunderstorms are for HER because I don't like them and they remind me of bad things???
Tornados? Hurricanes? I suppose in this case it depends on the analogs one selects.
0 -
I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct0 -
I love the weather comparison. It shows the point exactly. Weather is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you feel about it or react to it.
I love snow. I love a snowstorm that stops the whole city from functioning. One of my coworkers hates snow with a passion.
She hates being cold. I hate being warm. There is no universal good or bad weather for the both of us.
I used to love thunderstorms. I would sit and watch them. Then I was in a bombing and now I hate thunderstorms and they make my skin crawl. So, did the qualities of thunderstorms change? Or is it me who changed? Do I tell the person upthread how bad thunderstorms are for HER because I don't like them and they remind me of bad things???
Tornados? Hurricanes? I suppose in this case it depends on the analogs one selects.
Would a tornado be "bad" for someone who makes their life's work out of studying them? Obviously they can be devastating for some, but the opportunity to learn more about them to help people be better prepared and prevent future casualties is positive.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »This weather example seems to me a perfect example of how just calling weather bad without context is as silly as calling food bad without context.
Is there really bad weather? (well tsunamis and hurricanes I suppose but thats not what people usually mean when they say today's weather is bad) or is it just bad weather fir that person and that context- eg rain is bad if you were hosting an outdoor garden event, but is very good if you are in a drought. Rain itself is not bad, it is only bad for you in your context.
So, sure people can say foods are bad for them if they have allergies etc but that doesn't make the food itself inherently bad or bad for everyone in all amounts and all contexts.
Just like, as I said before, cats are not bad pets for everyone because my husband is allergic to them.
And, as always, dosage and context matters - just because Twinkies are not bad doesn't mean eat 200 of them per day. Or 200 carrots for that matter.
Just like cats not being bad doesn't mean have 200 of them as pets or rain not being bad doesn't mean we want you to be washed away in a flood.
How about for those of us who love "bad" weather? I love it with it rains. Today, it hailed! I was outside, and that was less than ideal, but it was still really awesome.
Thunder and lightening? Yes, please!
See how complicated this quickly becomes when we don't use context or are lazy in language?
@snikkins Nailed it! Especially in your last sentence. Congrats on your 1,000th post!
Thanks! I didn't even notice. Ha!
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »This weather example seems to me a perfect example of how just calling weather bad without context is as silly as calling food bad without context.
Is there really bad weather? (well tsunamis and hurricanes I suppose but thats not what people usually mean when they say today's weather is bad) or is it just bad weather fir that person and that context- eg rain is bad if you were hosting an outdoor garden event, but is very good if you are in a drought. Rain itself is not bad, it is only bad for you in your context.
So, sure people can say foods are bad for them if they have allergies etc but that doesn't make the food itself inherently bad or bad for everyone in all amounts and all contexts.
Just like, as I said before, cats are not bad pets for everyone because my husband is allergic to them.
And, as always, dosage and context matters - just because Twinkies are not bad doesn't mean eat 200 of them per day. Or 200 carrots for that matter.
Just like cats not being bad doesn't mean have 200 of them as pets or rain not being bad doesn't mean we want you to be washed away in a flood.
How about for those of us who love "bad" weather? I love it with it rains. Today, it hailed! I was outside, and that was less than ideal, but it was still really awesome.
Thunder and lightening? Yes, please!
See how complicated this quickly becomes when we don't use context or are lazy in language?
Yes! I live in the southern USA and there's something so calming about sitting on the porch with a beer watching and listening to a summertime thunderstorm roll in. The smell of the incoming rain is intoxicating.
So jealous. The smell of rain is incredible.I love the weather comparison. It shows the point exactly. Weather is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you feel about it or react to it.
I love snow. I love a snowstorm that stops the whole city from functioning. One of my coworkers hates snow with a passion.
She hates being cold. I hate being warm. There is no universal good or bad weather for the both of us.
I used to love thunderstorms. I would sit and watch them. Then I was in a bombing and now I hate thunderstorms and they make my skin crawl. So, did the qualities of thunderstorms change? Or is it me who changed? Do I tell the person upthread how bad thunderstorms are for HER because I don't like them and they remind me of bad things???
Thanks for sharing. This is the other side of my post that makes it all come together.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.0 -
Good point. That was kind of the gist of what I had touched on with that example.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I love the weather comparison. It shows the point exactly. Weather is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you feel about it or react to it.
I love snow. I love a snowstorm that stops the whole city from functioning. One of my coworkers hates snow with a passion.
She hates being cold. I hate being warm. There is no universal good or bad weather for the both of us.
I used to love thunderstorms. I would sit and watch them. Then I was in a bombing and now I hate thunderstorms and they make my skin crawl. So, did the qualities of thunderstorms change? Or is it me who changed? Do I tell the person upthread how bad thunderstorms are for HER because I don't like them and they remind me of bad things???
Tornados? Hurricanes? I suppose in this case it depends on the analogs one selects.
Would a tornado be "bad" for someone who makes their life's work out of studying them? Obviously they can be devastating for some, but the opportunity to learn more about them to help people be better prepared and prevent future casualties is positive.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.
Sorry, I should not have implied daily. I saw another article which I can't find now, that suggest items such as those on the whoa list should not be more than 10-15% of an individual's average daily calories. And that would assume the person is getting appropriate macros/micros, again on an average over time.
I believe those articles would be providing the same direction.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
Simply fabulous. Thanks.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
This was you comment: "I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science."
Can you point to any nutritional advice from a mainstream expert in the field that is materially different than what is on the chart?
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Is there a point in eating a fried egg if it wasn't cooked in the same pan you cooked your bacon in?0 -
Brynne_Kathryn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Is there a point in eating a fried egg if it wasn't cooked in the same pan you cooked your bacon in?
It would be a total fail
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.
Sorry, I should not have implied daily. I saw another article which I can't find now, that suggest items such as those on the whoa list should not be more than 10-15% of an individual's average daily calories. And that would assume the person is getting appropriate macros/micros, again on an average over time.
I believe those articles would be providing the same direction.
So the overall point I think you are making -- whether you mean to or not -- is that it's overall diet that matters. I totally agree, and think most who argue that there are no bad foods also would. Absolutely a sensible diet should include a sensible breakdown of macros and adequate micros and, yes, eating a disproportionate amount of cheese or cookies or coconut oil wouldn't allow for that. But you need to look at diet and, I'd argue, what you include and total calories, vs. what you don't include, for a good understanding of that.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
Also, really smart points.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.
Sorry, I should not have implied daily. I saw another article which I can't find now, that suggest items such as those on the whoa list should not be more than 10-15% of an individual's average daily calories. And that would assume the person is getting appropriate macros/micros, again on an average over time.
I believe those articles would be providing the same direction.
So the overall point I think you are making -- whether you mean to or not -- is that it's overall diet that matters. I totally agree, and think most who argue that there are no bad foods also would. Absolutely a sensible diet should include a sensible breakdown of macros and adequate micros and, yes, eating a disproportionate amount of cheese or cookies or coconut oil wouldn't allow for that. But you need to look at diet and, I'd argue, what you include and total calories, vs. what you don't include, for a good understanding of that.
Yes, overall diet and what is included is key.
I will read some of these posts about how someone is on a low calorie diet and hitting their macros when I'm waiting for an appointment. Often you will look at the person's diary and they will be on 1500 calories a day, 500 calories of high calorie, low nutrient food hit their macros and claim victory. Even though if you look back a few weeks had they haven't had one fruit or vegetable in that time.
Sorry, to me that is not victory and tool like the chart I posted have a place in educating people on reasonable choices.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions