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.
CICO is not the whole equation
Options
Replies
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?6 -
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
Nothing, a real doctor would agree. @geneticexpectations is not a doctor, and I would bet big money is the help at the hospital, not a doctor.8 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.
It's pieces of writing like this last paragraph that have definitely given me a heads up on the types of personalities that employ "emotional reasoning", ie writing their own script of what is going on around them, establishing it as fact, and then behaving based on that script. Getting exposed to this over the years has given me a huge heads up in dealing with difficult individuals, more in life than at work actually.
You are presuming that what you state is fact to presume that I am coming from a place of emotion rather than insight into how you're thinking.
What you just said about me says far more about you than it does about me.17 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
Because big food is the anti-Christ ..the seventh seal is actually a Twinkie that is eaten not broken...12 -
annaskiski wrote: »If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
Nothing, a real doctor would agree. @geneticexpectations is not a doctor, and I would bet big money is the help at the hospital, not a doctor.
Good point, one should always be skeptical about the identity of anyone on the internet. So a reasonable way to express that would be "This person may not be a doctor" or "I have doubts that this person is a doctor".
However since there is no way you would know if anyone on the internet is a doctor or not, definitively stating one way or the other is impossible. Statements that are based on impossibility of knowledge absolutely call into question any credibility your comments may carry.
This is another personality trait that I have noticed in a large minority of the "it's all about CICO" crowd. If one is able to definitively state something as fact when there is no possible way they could have knowledge about that fact, it does explain the ease at which one can definitively and conclusively rationalize that a certain frankenfood can't possibly be bad for you.
2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
Going back to this, then will add a bit (having read the whole thread).- Complexity of a system does not change the most fundamental scientific principles that apply. Yes, there is much more to it as a practical matter, but CICO is the foundation.
- N=1: I'm a diehard CICO booster, and encourage people to find a nutritious way of eating (based on micros and macros) that they personally enjoy, because of #1 (especially the "more to it as a practical matter" part).
Personally, my usual way of eating is almost ridiculously poster-child "clean" and "whole foods" and "locavore" and lots of other really absurd terms others have used after looking at my diary or other posts. I don't use any of those silly terms because they're so ill-defined as to be utterly meaningless. (I've never been "paleo" or "primal" because I've been vegetarian since 1974.) - All of us, really? Even those us for whom some of those WOEs are not "alternative methods"? Admittedly, as I said, I do reject those terms as not helpful for communication, since their meaning is so ill-defined, and some use them with a whiff of moral righteousness. That latter, when it shows up, will tend to bring out hostility in others. Oddly, I see what you call the 'converse scenario' ("clean eaters" getting hostile at moderation advocates) fairly often. I think the proportions of A demonizing B, and B demonizing A, are pretty equal, because personality types are similarly distributed across the groups. (As an aside, I also think that assuming all CICO advocates love their junk food can be an example of thinly veiled hostility.)
"Big Food": When I was taking marketing classes in MBA school, pretty much what we were taught (putting it cynically) was "figure out what people really, really want (not what they say they want), give it to them, and market the c**p out of it (if helpful, by posturing as if it's what they say they want, but really don't)" . . . hence the crispy chicken salad, the value menu, the bottomless pop/soda, etc. In finance class, they taught us about profit.
Put these together, you have Big Food, profitably selling us stuff we want, that isn't necessarily good for us.
I don't expect business to be my caring mommy & daddy who look out for me. I'm an adult. They have motives. This is consumer capitalism, and I kinda like capitalism. As long as they don't literally cheat or lie (which they sometimes do), I don't think it's immoral.
Big Pharma: I'm in the "would be dead by now without it" camp (locally advanced stage III breast cancer in 2000, with chemo & all the trimmings). But when the statins question came up in my life, and I was already pre-hypertensive, I tried eating 'better' first (with small, but some benefit), even though I was already eating fairly nutritiously. Then I buckled down & lost a third of my body weight. Now I'm down to a BMI of 21.2, and holding in maintenance for over a year. Cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure are all Just Fabulous (and they were rapidly on that track well before I lost the whole 60 pounds - 30 was pretty magical). This makes me believe that quantity is more important than quality, even though n=1.
The reason Calories In < Calories Out doesn't work for most people - based on observation of many people around me who are obese/overweight, who say they want to lose weight - is that they don't really want to do what it takes to implement it. This is true even after they've seen me do it. One person I know has tried it after seeing it work for me . . . and it worked.
Sure, there are a few percentage points of people in the population who have special difficulties applying these principles: Hypothyroidism (oops, not that one, I'm hypothyroid, too) or other medical conditions; older (oops, I'm 61); and . . . I don't know, but I'm willing to believe they're out there. Gotta be single digit percents of the population with special problems. Most of us just don't want to, really. It's not necessarily easy.9 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
By losing the extra weight, while still eating grains, sugary foods, processed foods, fast food etc, I improved all my health markers/blood work panels-including normalizing a high/prediabetic glucose number. T2 has has killed several (obese) relatives of mine, and I'm the only one in my family who's stopped the progression of prediabetes. Now I'm successfully maintaining a bmi of around 20, still have consistent, good feedback from my doctor and I still eat grains, sugary foods, processed foods etc. I also eat veggies and fruit, lean meats, eggs, fish etc. My #1 focus continues to be CICO, and then I eat a varied diet of all the foods I enjoy. Food is food
None of my immediate family uses prescriptions or need medications, so no warm, fuzzy feelings towards big pharma over here (besides vaccinations, they get kudos for those ). But, as I posted above-I'm all about inexpensive food so I'm good with big food lol 3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.
It's pieces of writing like this last paragraph that have definitely given me a heads up on the types of personalities that employ "emotional reasoning", ie writing their own script of what is going on around them, establishing it as fact, and then behaving based on that script. Getting exposed to this over the years has given me a huge heads up in dealing with difficult individuals, more in life than at work actually.
You are presuming that what you state is fact to presume that I am coming from a place of emotion rather than insight into how you're thinking.
What you just said about me says far more about you than it does about me.
Stating that it is "insight" still has the underlying premise that you believe that you are correct about how I'm thinking, without giving room to verify your hypothesis.
Let me put this another way. When I try to guess what others are thinking I use words like "it seems to me" or, "I get the sense that" or I ASK. You use words such as "You are" and stated that my thought process is one of judgement as if that is fact without asking for verification.
The latter examples are the characteristics of certain axis II conditions in the DSM-IV. This will be our last interaction as when I identify those characteristics (outside of the professional setting), I permanently disengage with such individuals. We're done.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?
My question would be if I got the ingredients from local farmers and made the Twinkies or something equivalent myself rather than buying them from a Big Food company, would you still have a problem with me including an occasional Twinkie in my diet if my diet overall was still mostly lean meats, fruit, veggies, etc.? (And I actually don't even like Twinkies and I don't eat them, I'm just curious).6 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?
No, no one has tried to convince me that I will get a chronic illness if I eat a twinkie. Why would they? Even if I did develop a chronic illness, who is to say it was the twinkie that did it?
And what, aside from macro and micro nutrient content is important about my food? Is your contention that two apples containing the same macro and micro nutrient profile are different based on who is selling them to me? So apple from a farmer and I'm cool; apple from Publix and it's an early death by chronic illness?12 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
By losing the extra weight, while still eating grains, sugary foods, processed foods, fast food etc, I improved all my health markers/blood work panels-including normalizing a high/prediabetic glucose number. T2 has has killed several (obese) relatives of mine, and I'm the only one in my family who's stopped the progression of prediabetes. Now I'm successfully maintaining a bmi of around 20, still have consistent, good feedback from my doctor and I still eat grains, sugary foods, processed foods etc. I also eat veggies and fruit, lean meats, eggs, fish etc. My #1 focus continues to be CICO, and then I eat a varied diet of all the foods I enjoy. Food is food
None of my immediate family uses prescriptions or need medications, so no warm, fuzzy feelings towards big pharma over here (besides vaccinations, they get kudos for those ). But, as I posted above-I'm all about inexpensive food so I'm good with big food lol
Awesome, congrats, I'm glad things are going well for you0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.
It's pieces of writing like this last paragraph that have definitely given me a heads up on the types of personalities that employ "emotional reasoning", ie writing their own script of what is going on around them, establishing it as fact, and then behaving based on that script. Getting exposed to this over the years has given me a huge heads up in dealing with difficult individuals, more in life than at work actually.
You are presuming that what you state is fact to presume that I am coming from a place of emotion rather than insight into how you're thinking.
What you just said about me says far more about you than it does about me.
Stating that it is "insight" still has the underlying premise that you believe that you are correct about how I'm thinking, without giving room to verify your hypothesis.
Let me put this another way. When I try to guess what others are thinking I use words like "it seems to me" or, "I get the sense that" or I ASK. You use words such as "You are" and stated that my thought process is one of judgement as if that is fact without asking for verification.
The latter examples are the characteristics of certain axis II conditions in the DSM-IV. This will be our last interaction as when I identify those characteristics (outside of the professional setting), I permanently disengage with such individuals. We're done.
No, you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't presume you think that way by necessity. At least consciously.
I'm saying that victim blaming is inherent in the position of "food as medicine". Full stop.
You are not the only proponent of this concept, my issues are not with you, my issues are with the concept itself. This isn't the first place I've heard it espoused, and my qualms about it aren't unique. The fact that it ignores things like genetic factors in many diseases are very troubling.
People can and do do everything "right" and still get felled by disease. Look at what just happened to Bob Harper.
So while you've seen fit to pass judgement on me and stooped as low as coming shy of diagnosing me, I'm merely passing judgement on your opinion.
So yes, we're done here.19 -
This thread has a very deja vu like feel.6
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
I support business... big and small. I do not fault those businesses for their drive to make a profit. I also support big and small pharma for all their valuable research... just like I support government for the same reason. I do not make judgments against everyone for the situations where greed was involved.
Having said all that, I have a doctor who is not pill crazy when it comes to basic things that can't be treated and I appreciate his unwillingness to mask my symptoms with drugs. Instead, he would rather tell me natural and free remedies to solve many of my problems so when I really do need antibiotics that my body will respond well.
And what are we in denial about? That food is just food? Does this mean that we don't care about our bodies because we dont' share the same jaded view that you hold? Do you honestly think that organic, or whatever food is somehow more beneficial to you outside of taste?
The fact is, food has much less importance to your health, than not being over weight, exercise and genetics. Even with total crap diets, if you lose weight, all metabolic markers will generally improve. That doesnt' mean that we don't believe in eating a variety of foods and adequate nutrients. This also dont' mean that we don't want to support local industry. What it means, is that we understand that the most important factor is energy balance. Macro nutrient composition and micronutrients support satiety and health.11 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?
I am confused by what you are trying to say in this thread. CICO relates to weight loss alone and you keep bringing health into the discussion and not tying them together. If I want to lose weight I must burn more calories than I consume, period. "Quality" foods don't allow me to eat more than I burn and still lose weight and "bad" foods don't cause me to gain or maintain weight when I eat less than I burn.
If I chose to tie in health to CICO then I can look at the nutrition profile of the foods I eat but I still lose or gain based on CICO alone.
What do you find wrong with CICO and weight loss in a way that is not about overall health? It would help if you clarified your position on weight loss and calories and how "quality" impacts the loss or gains outside of CICO.3 -
ivygirl1937 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?
My question would be if I got the ingredients from local farmers and made the Twinkies or something equivalent myself rather than buying them from a Big Food company, would you still have a problem with me including an occasional Twinkie in my diet if my diet overall was still mostly lean meats, fruit, veggies, etc.? (And I actually don't even like Twinkies and I don't eat them, I'm just curious).
Regarding wording.. I don't have a problem with what anybody eats. b/c I'm not in charge of anybody but me. I think you're asking if I'd be ok myself eating it.
But to your question, it depends on the actual ingredients more than where they come from. If the twinkie was made witha farmer's industrial seed oils, a bunch of sugar and grains, and mystery ingredients x, y, and z then no I wouldn't eat it. If it was made with natural fats (animal or coconut), crushed nuts, nut butter, fruit and magically tasted like a twinkie, or even just tasted kinda good, whether it came from a farmer or not, yeah I'd eat that.
(Regarding the ingredients, I have no idea how to make a primal/paleo twinkie, I just made @#$ up).1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
I support business... big and small. I do not fault those businesses for their drive to make a profit. I also support big and small pharma for all their valuable research... just like I support government for the same reason. I do not make judgments against everyone for the situations where greed was involved.
Having said all that, I have a doctor who is not pill crazy when it comes to basic things that can't be treated and I appreciate his unwillingness to mask my symptoms with drugs. Instead, he would rather tell me natural and free remedies to solve many of my problems so when I really do need antibiotics that my body will respond well.
And what are we in denial about? That food is just food? Does this mean that we don't care about our bodies because we dont' share the same jaded view that you hold? Do you honestly think that organic, or whatever food is somehow more beneficial to you outside of taste?
The fact is, food has much less importance to your health, than not being over weight, exercise and genetics. Even with total crap diets, if you lose weight, all metabolic markers will generally improve. That doesnt' mean that we don't believe in eating a variety of foods and adequate nutrients. This also dont' mean that we don't want to support local industry. What it means, is that we understand that the most important factor is energy balance. Macro nutrient composition and micronutrients support satiety and health.
You stated "The fact is, food has much less importance to your health". That's fact?
I mean my stance is the opposite, I think food's influence on health is tremendous, but I preface it with I think or my experience is that this happens. Even though I believe strongly in it and my experiences support that, I still won't go so far as to say "That's fact".
Filling in the blanks can lead to misinformation. But filling in the blanks conclusively can lead to immunity of information coming in.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions