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
Options
Replies
-
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
-
-
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?
This sounds just like "If limiting carbs is all that matters, why couldn't you just eat zero vegetables?"
Context matters here. When this phrases is used, it's usually to a "OMG I ATE A COOKIE MY DIET IS RUINED" or "I can't do it anymore, I miss my usual foods" types of threads. It's usually used to assist the poster with adherence or correct faulty claims like "i gain weight on 1200 calories, I went low carb and now I'm losing on 2000 calories because carbs make you fat" or "dairy makes you fat" or [inset anything] makes you fat. Basically, it's used to state a weight loss fact, not to evaluate the quality of a diet. Never once have I seen it used to tell a person to eat nothing but pizza and chips.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »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.
No, I can't because at this point you're being willfully ignorant.
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?
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.
No, but it seems to be a common misunderstanding by those bent on it.
Calorie is not, actually, a synonym for food. It is a unit of energy. Of course foods are different (although I personally think the significance of macros, beyond minimum protein, is overstated here). It is important for health and well-being to eat a generally nutritious diet, and food choice matters for that (although there is more flexibility than some seem to accept, and if you eat a good diet there's no harm in also including some extra, lower nutrient stuff, whether cheese or bacon or apple pie).
No one ever has claimed that foods are identical. That seems to be a willful misunderstanding of a calorie is a calorie.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?
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.
Because as has been pointed out time and time again - calories are a unit of measurement of energy. A calorie is a calorie the same way an inch is an inch, or a meter is a meter, for our Imperial loving friends. That does not mean that all foods are the same from a macro and micro nutrient perspective.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
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?
630 when I did the Nigella recipe (which has a can of tomatoes in it)0 -
Wait, so when someone posts "HALP, I CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT NO MATTER WHAT I DO!!2124!" someone doesn't chime in and suggest cutting out sugar and carbs?
Are we on the same forums?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.
Actually, this post, as part of this long thread filled with arguments from passionate people on different sides who, if you actually looked at it, are really not that dissimilar in their goals and the way that they choose to eat, reminded me of this gif and what happens when people are so caught up in the argument that they fail to actually comprehend what the other side is saying...1 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »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.
Levels of analysis.
Let's first ignore all the energy that leaves your body (calories out) as a black box and just assume we have a fixed number of them going out everyday - your Total Daily Energy Expenditure TDEE - things like Fitibts try to estimate this number.
So now we know your body is putting a certain amount of energy amount every day. Ultimately, it tends to leave your body as heat. Heat content is often measured in calories - amounts of energy it takes to heat water.
At this level, the laws of thermodynamics tell us about book keeping. If the system is going to stay the same, the energy out has to be balanced coming in, and this assumes the system stays the same - different states of greater or lesser organization are forms of energy (entropy) too. So to stay the same, we have to say calories in and calories out are balanced. This is true at this level of analysis.
If calories in becomes less than calories out, the energy has to be the same. You can't draw energy out of nothing, all energy is transfer, never creation or destruction, this is thermodynamic laws' book keeping. The energy therefore has to come by removing organization from your body, typically in the bonds of molecules of fat molecules in your body. This all, always holds true.
Now, deeper level, macros.
Your body isn't just fat, and fat isn't the only thing you can lose, obviously. You could lose energy by changing composition of the body - losing highly structured muscle which your body is generally against doing because making muscle isn't a very reversible process - you lose a lot of the energy that was used to make all that structure and you can't recover it. At this level, hormonal signals and metabolic pathways as a vague thing have some importance. Protein levels, particularly the amino acid leucine tend to signal how "worth it" building or tearing down muscle is, depending on other signals of actual activity.
At this level, fats begin to matter, Some hormonal signals can only be made from fats, and they must be used, either from your body's stores or your diet. Particularly as a person becomes leaner, using storage fat for this purpose becomes harder and harder because there is less of it to use.
Deeper yet is micros
Lack of things like B-vitamins means your body could have all the carbs or fats it needs for energy, it can't perform the chemical reactions. Those vitamins are used in activity the switches and turning the dials that are pumping electron bonds on and off the the carbs and fats to ultimately transfer energy. They have no calories themselves, but without them, ingested calories are useless.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions