Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Low carb and vegetables
Replies
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Because it's silly to limit food based on how processed it is. It should be limited or not based on the actual food.
But then why are people saying that it's unhealthy to eat too much meat or cheese?
Also, I'm not even sure what this means. I'm saying that ultra processed food should be limited based on the actual food, which is crap.
Whey is ultra processed. If I've been wailing on my pecs and need to get in protein, but need to minimize calories and time, and increase digestiblity because of the exercise, why is the whey inherently crap just because it was ultra processed?
I don't think meat or cheese is unhealthy, just eating it to the exclusion of vegetables and other varieties of food.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Oh right, you read one sentence and ignore every thing else. People say CICO, then follow it with you need to hit your basic nutritional requirements, eat foods that keep you feeling satiated, take into account medical issues, etc.
But you ignore that. Fine.
Just point on the doll where the CICO touched you...0 -
So do you both form your opinions based on extremes? I certainly don't. If I did, I would think all flexible dieters eat nothing but ice cream and sweets. And considering how many members argue against those strawman comments, I would expect that the flexible dieters wouldn't do the same.
I guess the question is, if the majority of the people you know who decide to do low carb are doing it partially in order to avoid eating so many vegetables, is it actually an extreme/outlier? Or are the people posting online about low carb that advocate for eating vegetables the outliers?
Is there any credible data on that? I think we tend to forget that just like the people we see IRL everyday aren't necessarily a good measure of the rest of the population, neither are the people whose posts we see everyday.
Oh, and FTR - the few people I know who tried low carb most definitely did so with the intent of avoiding vegetables (as defined as non-starchy, etc). Which is not surprising since they just plain don't like vegetables and would do that on any diet if at all possible.
I actually dont make a judgement of a diet based on the people who "follow" the plan but rather the implementation plan established for said plan. If people who follow that diet chose to restrict a specific food group, outside of the recommendations of the plan, then its on them. But in real life, and a lot of people i know here, tend to eat more veggies on a low carb diet. I know fewer who dont eat them (2 only come to mind). And while some are more vocal, it doesnt mean, by any standard, that a diet does not encourage the eating of veggies but rather recommends particular veggies based on nutrient profiles.
And personally, i know as many high carbers who restrict or dont each veggies. I, for one, probably dont eat as many veggies as i should but thats because fruit is better and many veggies are not convient to me outside of dinner.
I also think that we should make less judgments against one diet or another based on extremes people within those diets. I think by making such judgements of a diet based on the people following them, it can and will be disingenuous.
And FTR, i know people who do flexible dieting just because it allows them to eat ice cream.
Yes, that's a decent way to go about it - although I would argue that the implementation isn't all that great if it doesn't specify minimums as necessary. Then if people aren't following the implementation, they can be dismissed in the evaluation entirely.
But the point I was addressing was the claim that people were making judgements based on extremes. And perhaps they are. But to know that, we'd need to know if those groups are actual extremes, yes? Not that they are extreme based on perception, but in reality.
ETA: And lastly - so there aren't any other diets they knew about that would allow them to eat ice cream? Seems strange.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
Spitting out the buckshot though, who ever can find the time?
That's really uncalled for. We can disagree with each other without being insulting and derogatory, or resorting to ad hominem. That's really not necessary. And I live in Los Angeles, not that it matters.0 -
So do you both form your opinions based on extremes? I certainly don't. If I did, I would think all flexible dieters eat nothing but ice cream and sweets. And considering how many members argue against those strawman comments, I would expect that the flexible dieters wouldn't do the same.
I guess the question is, if the majority of the people you know who decide to do low carb are doing it partially in order to avoid eating so many vegetables, is it actually an extreme/outlier? Or are the people posting online about low carb that advocate for eating vegetables the outliers?
Is there any credible data on that? I think we tend to forget that just like the people we see IRL everyday aren't necessarily a good measure of the rest of the population, neither are the people whose posts we see everyday.
Oh, and FTR - the few people I know who tried low carb most definitely did so with the intent of avoiding vegetables (as defined as non-starchy, etc). Which is not surprising since they just plain don't like vegetables and would do that on any diet if at all possible.
Why would they need low carb to do that?
Because at least some people interpret low carb as meaning eat as much meat and cheese as you want and it's "healthy?"
Similar to how some people interpret calorie counting as eating whatever you want and it's "healthy"?
I would say the allure is more for people attracted to the idea that they don't have to give up fatty meats like bacon in the same way that calorie counting advocates are attracted by the allure that they don't have to give up kitkat bars.
With calorie counting, you don't have to give up bacon or KitKats, and that's sort of the point.
This debate is stemming from the place where many low carb posters here don't cut veggies or may even eat more veggies now that they low carb not acknowledging the part where that is simply not true for everyone, not that other people's diets can also be unhealthy.
I'd argue that because many people interpret low carb to mean carbs = bad, people who don't like veggies, which are carbs, use it as an excuse to not eat them since low carb is "healthy" by definition of removing carbs. But just as so many posters have pointed out, there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing any diet.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
Spitting out the buckshot though, who ever can find the time?
That's really uncalled for. We can disagree with each other without being insulting and derogatory, or resorting to ad hominem. That's really not necessary. And I live in Los Angeles, not that it matters.
Known how I know you've never been hunting for rabbit?0 -
Is it disingenuous that a diet that promotes that one can eat whatever they want within a deficit promotes healthy food choices? As many have said, no one suggests that all your calories come from ice cream.I don't agree that relatively few people would find low carb disadvantageous to their current diet since compliance with a WOE is probably the most important factor. However, I don't think that is the topic at hand, so I'll leave it be.
As a vegetarian who sometimes did low carb dieting...the idea that the diet promotes the eating of vegetables sends me laughing out of the forums. I also get thoroughly annoyed with the misinformation being bandied about with that wonky study that carbs cause cancer. It's stuff like that...that ends up being the undercurrent on the conversation we are currently having.
Well, I kind of understand that. Would you be willing to be open to the possibility of it being true?
I don't think so. It's disingenuous that a diet that is often described as a limit of 50 carbs promotes eating vegetables. It can and most often does include vegetables and it's not devoid of them, it's not a diet that promotes it.
LC indirectly promotes veggies in the same way that calorie counting indirectly promotes healthy eating by encouraging/forcing the dieter to budget. Sure, when I was only concerned with a deficit, I could eat the Honeybun from the vending machine a few steps from my office, but the 460 calories would take up nearly a third of a 1500 calorie allotment. If I only have 50 carbs to work with, I am more likely to forgo the baked potato of 64 g and opt instead for up to 300 grams of broccoli of 21g.
ETA: I know "healthy" is a vague term, but work with me here.
When is it that I said that a diet that promotes that one can eat whatever they want within a deficit promotes healthy food choices? That diet dispels many weight loss myths and gets down to the nuts and bolts of what is fundamentally necessary for someone to lose weight, being in a caloric deficit.
It still doesn't mean low carb promotes veggies. I've spent enough time in the special low carb land here to know that isn't what happens. I see a lot of promotion of butter and coconut oil and lately ground beef, but only a mere mention of veggies. I am not saying that those who do low carb eat no veggies. I'm not the strawman here, however I am not gonna be sold on it being a veggie promoting diet. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.
You didn't, I did, but I am surprised that you disagree. I feel it does. Well, ok. I guess we are at an impasse.
However, I did just happen to read that in the Atkins induction phase, "Carbohydrate intake is limited to less than 20 net grams per day (grams of carbohydrates minus grams of fiber, sugar alcohols, or glycerin); of this amount, 12 to 15 net grams must come in the form of salad greens and other vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, pumpkin, cauliflower, turnips, tomatoes, and asparagus. " I would say that is promoting veggies, but I get your point that people don't always implement it as such. In my world I would say that most low carbers I know tend to promote veggies, but I can also understand how the meat only folks are more prevalent on the mind.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
You have a quite different idea of the type of pizza I like and normally eat than the reality.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Oh right, you read one sentence and ignore every thing else. People say CICO, then follow it with you need to hit your basic nutritional requirements, eat foods that keep you feeling satiated, take into account medical issues, etc.
But you ignore that. Fine.
Just point on the doll where the CICO touched you...
But if a calorie is a calorie and all calories are the same, then why do macros even matter at all? You still haven't answered that question. Even if someone has a medical issue, if all calories are the same, then why would it matter?
For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
And again, that's really not necessary.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Macros matter for health. Most who follow a moderation diet make that very clear.
And yes, a calorie is a calorie.
If all calories are the same, then why do macros matter for health? That's contradictory.0 -
Is it disingenuous that a diet that promotes that one can eat whatever they want within a deficit promotes healthy food choices? As many have said, no one suggests that all your calories come from ice cream.I don't agree that relatively few people would find low carb disadvantageous to their current diet since compliance with a WOE is probably the most important factor. However, I don't think that is the topic at hand, so I'll leave it be.
As a vegetarian who sometimes did low carb dieting...the idea that the diet promotes the eating of vegetables sends me laughing out of the forums. I also get thoroughly annoyed with the misinformation being bandied about with that wonky study that carbs cause cancer. It's stuff like that...that ends up being the undercurrent on the conversation we are currently having.
Well, I kind of understand that. Would you be willing to be open to the possibility of it being true?
I don't think so. It's disingenuous that a diet that is often described as a limit of 50 carbs promotes eating vegetables. It can and most often does include vegetables and it's not devoid of them, it's not a diet that promotes it.
LC indirectly promotes veggies in the same way that calorie counting indirectly promotes healthy eating by encouraging/forcing the dieter to budget. Sure, when I was only concerned with a deficit, I could eat the Honeybun from the vending machine a few steps from my office, but the 460 calories would take up nearly a third of a 1500 calorie allotment. If I only have 50 carbs to work with, I am more likely to forgo the baked potato of 64 g and opt instead for up to 300 grams of broccoli of 21g.
ETA: I know "healthy" is a vague term, but work with me here.
When is it that I said that a diet that promotes that one can eat whatever they want within a deficit promotes healthy food choices? That diet dispels many weight loss myths and gets down to the nuts and bolts of what is fundamentally necessary for someone to lose weight, being in a caloric deficit.
It still doesn't mean low carb promotes veggies. I've spent enough time in the special low carb land here to know that isn't what happens. I see a lot of promotion of butter and coconut oil and lately ground beef, but only a mere mention of veggies. I am not saying that those who do low carb eat no veggies. I'm not the strawman here, however I am not gonna be sold on it being a veggie promoting diet. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.
You didn't, I did, but I am surprised that you disagree. I feel it does. Well, ok. I guess we are at an impasse.
However, I did just happen to read that in the Atkins induction phase, "Carbohydrate intake is limited to less than 20 net grams per day (grams of carbohydrates minus grams of fiber, sugar alcohols, or glycerin); of this amount, 12 to 15 net grams must come in the form of salad greens and other vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, pumpkin, cauliflower, turnips, tomatoes, and asparagus. " I would say that is promoting veggies, but I get your point that people don't always implement it as such. In my world I would say that most low carbers I know tend to promote veggies, but I can also understand how the meat only folks are more prevalent on the mind.
Atkins has also changed over the years, iirc. My dad did it awhile ago, and I suppose you could argue it was veggie promoting because at the end of two weeks of meat, cheese, and eggs, all he wanted was a salad.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »
Not enough fat though.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
If I had a farm, I could fatten them up first.
LOL 0 -
It's almost like, by saying that a person should have the proper balance of macro nutrients, you're admitting that not all calories are the same.... hmmm.......0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Oh right, you read one sentence and ignore every thing else. People say CICO, then follow it with you need to hit your basic nutritional requirements, eat foods that keep you feeling satiated, take into account medical issues, etc.
But you ignore that. Fine.
Just point on the doll where the CICO touched you...
But if a calorie is a calorie and all calories are the same, then why do macros even matter at all? You still haven't answered that question. Even if someone has a medical issue, if all calories are the same, then why would it matter?
For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
And again, that's really not necessary.
Satiety. Fat soluble vitamin absorption. Maintenance of lean muscle mass.
Don't act ignorant of the fact that these ideas are brought up over, and over, and over again in CICO threads.0 -
I don't spend a lot of time in the main forums, but I have yet to encounter a meat-only extremist telling anyone they should only eat meat. In truth, I very rarely see it in the LC group. There may be challenges here and there, but I have never witnessed what I would characterize as evangelization of that particular WOE.stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »From my standpoint, and the reason I take part in this particular debate is I feel that some are proliferating a myth that you can't eat a healthy amount of veggies and remain low carb, and that just isn't true.
But I have quite carefully explained that I am not saying that. For me counting vegetables would be counterproductive, but I believe you can have a perfectly healthy diet while low carbing.
What I am reacting to -- and some of this relates to past conversations -- are people pushing the notion that it's not important at all to eat vegetables and that when it comes to carbs the lower the better and the main problem with the US diet is carbs. I do think it's just the flip side of the fat fear and no more helpful.
So your entire argument is based off a few misguided extremist as opposed to the collective group? If so, maybe your views need to change slightly based on the majority...
If for every misguided extremist there were a handful of normal ones telling them to step back and rethink wtf they're talking about, there would be no problems, but that's not how it is. Often the extremists are the only ones in the discussion. That is probably also true for other topics.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »So do you both form your opinions based on extremes? I certainly don't. If I did, I would think all flexible dieters eat nothing but ice cream and sweets. And considering how many members argue against those strawman comments, I would expect that the flexible dieters wouldn't do the same.
I guess the question is, if the majority of the people you know who decide to do low carb are doing it partially in order to avoid eating so many vegetables, is it actually an extreme/outlier? Or are the people posting online about low carb that advocate for eating vegetables the outliers?
Is there any credible data on that? I think we tend to forget that just like the people we see IRL everyday aren't necessarily a good measure of the rest of the population, neither are the people whose posts we see everyday.
Oh, and FTR - the few people I know who tried low carb most definitely did so with the intent of avoiding vegetables (as defined as non-starchy, etc). Which is not surprising since they just plain don't like vegetables and would do that on any diet if at all possible.
Why would they need low carb to do that?
Because at least some people interpret low carb as meaning eat as much meat and cheese as you want and it's "healthy?"
But this meatzza clearly has basil on it. Totally counts, right?
I don't usually like meat, but this looks like an exception (if I play the ground beef right with my usual additions that make it less "meaty"). Wonder how many calories a slice of that would be. Possibly 500?
Depending on the size and the type of ground beef, probably more -- a slice looks like a pretty big burger with lots of cheese.
I'm actually a fan of the bun-less burger (usually without cheese and with lots of vegetables on the side plus some roasted potatoes (that's the point of leaving out the bun, for me, as I prefer potatoes or sweet potatoes as my starch course).0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's almost like, by saying that a person should have the proper balance of macro nutrients, you're admitting that not all calories are the same.... hmmm.......
Calories are calories. All foods are not the same. Again, NO ONE EVER CLAIMED AT ALL FOODS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »
Not enough fat though.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
If I had a farm, I could fatten them up first. LOL
I could fatten them up by feeding them cereal grains, if they'll eat it. That's how we usually fatten up our livestock these days, after all. That's why I usually prefer to eat food rather than my food's food.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's almost like, by saying that a person should have the proper balance of macro nutrients, you're admitting that not all calories are the same.... hmmm.......
Calories are calories. All foods are not the same. Again, NO ONE EVER CLAIMED AT ALL FOODS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.
x10000 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
Spitting out the buckshot though, who ever can find the time?
That's really uncalled for. We can disagree with each other without being insulting and derogatory, or resorting to ad hominem. That's really not necessary. And I live in Los Angeles, not that it matters.
It was a reference to Back to the Future 3, hence has the time.
Interesting that you think hunting animals for game is an insult though.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Because it's silly to limit food based on how processed it is. It should be limited or not based on the actual food.
But then why are people saying that it's unhealthy to eat too much meat or cheese?
Also, I'm not even sure what this means. I'm saying that ultra processed food should be limited based on the actual food, which is crap.
You are the one who keeps bringing up nutrition experts, and their advice remains to limit meat and sat fat (as in cheese). I certainly don't think that means cheese can't be part of an overall balanced, healthy diet (although I think of it like ice cream -- an extra that I include because it's tasty), and I also admit that until quite recently I was eating more meat than I think is ideal because it does make weight loss easier for me. I also think that there can be reasonable differences over how much of these kinds of foods to include. I just also think that it's weird for people who are super judgy about others choosing to eat some chocolate or ice cream or pasta to ignore the fact that excess of meat and cheese are also considered among the issues with the American diet.
Oh, and for someone who goes on about processed foods you seem to be conveniently forgetting that cheese and ground beef are processed.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's almost like, by saying that a person should have the proper balance of macro nutrients, you're admitting that not all calories are the same.... hmmm.......
To see some people really riled up, try suggesting that the best way to get a properly balanced diet is to eat a clean, unprocessed, low carb high fat, paleo diet. LOL 0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »
Not enough fat though.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
If I had a farm, I could fatten them up first. LOL
I could fatten them up by feeding them cereal grains, if they'll eat it. That's how we usually fatten up our livestock these days, after all. That's why I usually prefer to eat food rather than my food's food.
You could offer them Trix cereal.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's almost like, by saying that a person should have the proper balance of macro nutrients, you're admitting that not all calories are the same.... hmmm.......
It is almost like calories are an abstraction at a certain level of analysis, and that deeper levels require more sophisticated and specific measures and explanation to describe physiology. Well actually, strike the almost like.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
Spitting out the buckshot though, who ever can find the time?
That's really uncalled for. We can disagree with each other without being insulting and derogatory, or resorting to ad hominem. That's really not necessary. And I live in Los Angeles, not that it matters.
Known how I know you've never been hunting for rabbit?
Would you hunt rabbit with a shotgun? I would think snares or a .22 would be the best option. Well, the best option would probably be to raise them yourself.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Oh right, you read one sentence and ignore every thing else. People say CICO, then follow it with you need to hit your basic nutritional requirements, eat foods that keep you feeling satiated, take into account medical issues, etc.
But you ignore that. Fine.
Just point on the doll where the CICO touched you...
But if a calorie is a calorie and all calories are the same, then why do macros even matter at all? You still haven't answered that question. Even if someone has a medical issue, if all calories are the same, then why would it matter?
For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
And again, that's really not necessary.
Satiety. Fat soluble vitamin absorption. Maintenance of lean muscle mass.
Don't act ignorant of the fact that these ideas are brought up over, and over, and over again in CICO threads.
Why are macros important for lean muscle mass if all calories are the same?
Why would one type of macronutrient satisfy my hunger better than another if all calories are the same?
To put it another way, if "a calorie is a calorie" and all calories are the same, then why couldn't I maintain muscle mass and keep my hunger satisfied on nothing but carbs? It's all the same, right?
I'm still not getting it. Perhaps you could explain it it to me. It's almost like you're saying that macronutrients, carbs vs. fats vs. proteins, have some kind of actual affect on human metabolism and feelings of hunger vs. satiety, and that different kinds of fuel feed our bodies in different ways that can actually affect our overall health and body composition. But that can't possibly be what you're saying, because a calorie is a calorie.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »
Not enough fat though.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
If I had a farm, I could fatten them up first. LOL
I could fatten them up by feeding them cereal grains, if they'll eat it. That's how we usually fatten up our livestock these days, after all. That's why I usually prefer to eat food rather than my food's food.
You could offer them Trix cereal.
Lol. OK, that was funny.
0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
Spitting out the buckshot though, who ever can find the time?
That's really uncalled for. We can disagree with each other without being insulting and derogatory, or resorting to ad hominem. That's really not necessary. And I live in Los Angeles, not that it matters.
Known how I know you've never been hunting for rabbit?
Would you hunt rabbit with a shotgun? I would think snares or a .22 would be the best option. Well, the best option would probably be to raise them yourself.
Best guess would be because you're a bad shot? Regardless, spitting out buckshot as a reference to hunting small game could never feasibly be construed as an insult or derogatory.
Unless being a bad shot in LA is derogatory? I'm still not sure how LA fits into the conversation...0 -
Can we please stop talking about killing animals? You are making me hungry and I just had a salad!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions