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: »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.
So if you take the healthiest, most nutrient dense foods possible and gain 40 lbs, how do you think your health will be affected?
Dont' get me wrong, things like MUFA, fiber, whole grains and omega 3's can influence and improve metabolic markers, but how much compared to fat loss or exercise?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.
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.
So if you take the healthiest, most nutrient dense foods possible and gain 40 lbs, how do you think your health will be affected?
Dont' get me wrong, things like MUFA, fiber, whole grains and omega 3's can influence and improve metabolic markers, but how much compared to fat loss or exercise?
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.2 -
This site is designed to help you change your body weight either up or down depending on your needs. So yeah, CICO really is everything. How you do it is up to you, but the end result for a body weight change is CICO.
2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
Interestingly enough, my wife cannot eat seeds and has been recommend get more whole grains (seeds/nuts + diverticulitis = major issues). Ideally we work in fish 2 to 3x a week, and get the majority of our nutrition from fruits, veggies, meats and dairy.... so mainly whole foods.
I do feel we share similar stances and with all the people I have worked with, have implemented this techniques of incorporating whole foods.. you know from big food
, but I have also taught them about the basics of energy balance (CICO) as the foundation. Additionally, I have also taught them it's ok to incorporate foods into their diet that aren't typical diet foods or are treats because it addresses the psychological battle that is involved.. the exception is trigger foods (at least in the beginning). I do this because I know when I followed Paleo, the restriction would cause me to binge.
3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
Interestingly enough, my wife cannot eat seeds and has been recommend get more whole grains (seeds/nuts + diverticulitis = major issues). Ideally we work in fish 2 to 3x a week, and get the majority of our nutrition from fruits, veggies, meats and dairy.... so mainly whole foods.
I do feel we share similar stances and with all the people I have worked with, have implemented this techniques of incorporating whole foods.. you know from big food, but I have also taught them about the basics of energy balance (CICO) as the foundation. Additionally, I have also taught them it's ok to incorporate foods into their diet that aren't typical diet foods or are treats because it addresses the psychological battle that is involved.. the exception is trigger foods (at least in the beginning). I do this because I know when I followed Paleo, the restriction would cause me to binge.
I agree totally that we share similar stances. And I'm sorry about your wife's diverticulitis. But regardless of if we did share stances or not, what I appreciate more is a back and forth discussion without hard feelings or silly argument tactics etc.
The psychological battle is something that I can totally appreciate. For most of my life (up until maybe 5 years ago) I couldn't get my hands off... pretty much any trigger food. In fact, most of my diet was what most would consider junk for a good 10 years. I think during that 10 years I may have had 3 vegetables. I knew that that wasn't the best idea, but I felt like I couldn't stop. I just ate and ate and ate and it was nothing good. Cravings 24/7.
I used paleo versions of deserts as a transition, and then weaning off them wasn't too hard. But there was a point at which I didn't crave any of it anymore, and it's just somehow stayed that way for a good 5 years. I get a similar story from most who I advise as well. But I do understand the need for elimination of a psychological battle and everyone goes through that differently.2 -
geneticexpectations 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.
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.
So if you take the healthiest, most nutrient dense foods possible and gain 40 lbs, how do you think your health will be affected?
Dont' get me wrong, things like MUFA, fiber, whole grains and omega 3's can influence and improve metabolic markers, but how much compared to fat loss or exercise?
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
There's actually quite a few here who've shared their stories of gaining weight while eating a whole foods/'clean' diet. I think at least one is participating in this thread, so maybe she'll chime in with her experience.5 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations 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.
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.
So if you take the healthiest, most nutrient dense foods possible and gain 40 lbs, how do you think your health will be affected?
Dont' get me wrong, things like MUFA, fiber, whole grains and omega 3's can influence and improve metabolic markers, but how much compared to fat loss or exercise?
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
There's actually quite a few here who've shared their stories of gaining weight while eating a whole foods/'clean' diet. I think at least one is participating in this thread, so maybe she'll chime in with her experience.
I don't doubt that one can gain on whole foods. At times I've gone up a pound or two. Then back down a pound or two. But 40 lbs on a strict whole food diet? I don't disbelieve it if someone says that happened, I just haven't seen it yet.
Maybe the avocado guy, if he can't stop eating avocados, but I can't seem to overeat on any whole foods and many share the same experience... like they are going to barf if they force anymore.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
Interestingly enough, my wife cannot eat seeds and has been recommend get more whole grains (seeds/nuts + diverticulitis = major issues). Ideally we work in fish 2 to 3x a week, and get the majority of our nutrition from fruits, veggies, meats and dairy.... so mainly whole foods.
I do feel we share similar stances and with all the people I have worked with, have implemented this techniques of incorporating whole foods.. you know from big food, but I have also taught them about the basics of energy balance (CICO) as the foundation. Additionally, I have also taught them it's ok to incorporate foods into their diet that aren't typical diet foods or are treats because it addresses the psychological battle that is involved.. the exception is trigger foods (at least in the beginning). I do this because I know when I followed Paleo, the restriction would cause me to binge.
I agree totally that we share similar stances. And I'm sorry about your wife's diverticulitis. But regardless of if we did share stances or not, what I appreciate more is a back and forth discussion without hard feelings or silly argument tactics etc.
The psychological battle is something that I can totally appreciate. For most of my life (up until maybe 5 years ago) I couldn't get my hands off... pretty much any trigger food. In fact, most of my diet was what most would consider junk for a good 10 years. I think during that 10 years I may have had 3 vegetables. I knew that that wasn't the best idea, but I felt like I couldn't stop. I just ate and ate and ate and it was nothing good. Cravings 24/7.
I used paleo versions of deserts as a transition, and then weaning off them wasn't too hard. But there was a point at which I didn't crave any of it anymore, and it's just somehow stayed that way for a good 5 years. I get a similar story from most who I advise as well. But I do understand the need for elimination of a psychological battle and everyone goes through that differently.
It's the internet, so I can assure you, that I would never take things too seriously. If I did, I would have never been able to be a mod at 5 years on this site. But if someone makes a crazy argument (conspiracy theories or stereotyping a community), I will provide my input back. That is why I did. I do not agree with any of your stances on those issues, especially the latter. The majority of those people that you think are CICO-zealots, also are some of the most fit on this board. And while many of us do incorporate treats, it's obviously proven effective. So I do defend that I do incorporate treats, but I recognize the benefits from it. And even then, I have yet to see any credible piece of evidence to disprove EE/CICO.8 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations 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.
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.
So if you take the healthiest, most nutrient dense foods possible and gain 40 lbs, how do you think your health will be affected?
Dont' get me wrong, things like MUFA, fiber, whole grains and omega 3's can influence and improve metabolic markers, but how much compared to fat loss or exercise?
Well, it would be affected negatively if you gain 40 lbs if that was the only variable we are looking at, but do you know many people who have gained that much on whole foods exclusively? I haven't come across that, but if I did, sure I would encourage them to eat less. But my sense of the quality of food being important to health wouldn't be affected by this scenario because I see weight loss as only one aspect of health, not a total reflection of health at all.
My stance is (not fact, my stance is) based on literature I have reviewed and clinical applications on patients is that whole foods that contain Sat fat (animal or natural plant), MUFA, incidental fiber, DHA/EPA, the wide spectrum of minerals, the wide spectrum of B vitamins, Vit C, the fat soluble vitamins, antioxidants, CLA the list goes on, IN THE ABSENCE of whole grains, industrial seed oils, significant added sugar seem to get people off all or most meds, lead them to a decent amount of weight loss at the very least, and improve their function. The fat loss often does go hand in hand.
Exercise is a tricky one. We can't be using it as a blanket statement anymore. Lots of low level movement is great, but people tend to overdo it on the intense stuff. In the cardiology circles, chronic cardio is being increasingly recognized as a risk factor for sudden cardiac death and cardiac arrhythmias. Short intense bouts of exercise with a good amount of recovery in between is seen as more beneficial in the more current literature.
But that's my stance. Not fact, but just in keeping with my observations and readings.
There's actually quite a few here who've shared their stories of gaining weight while eating a whole foods/'clean' diet. I think at least one is participating in this thread, so maybe she'll chime in with her experience.
Me! And I wasn't eating grains at the time since I was low carbing.
I had a very heavy hand with the olive oil.
I could put away egg salad in obscene quantities, and don't even get me started on how many chicken legs I'd put away as a snack.
And then there were the nuts. Loved them.
Low carbing didn't satiate me, so I ate.
A lot.
I gained 25-30 pounds, IIRC.
6 -
WOw.
How did this thread become such a train wreck4 -
What does this have to do with CICO not being the whole equation?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$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
How about this: why isn't the prison population full of obese people if quality of food REALLY matters?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Lol, everybody's JOB impacts someone in a NEGATIVE way down the line.geneticexpectations wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ 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).
??????
I'm not sure why you think this would be a provocative question...
It doesn't make a lot of sense, to begin with. Why would a CEO of a company like Nabisco "like" any of us? Do we know them? Do we care whether they "like" us or not?
From an economic perspective, CEO's want to please consumers and thus sell more of their products at a higher profit margin. If you choose not to purchase their products, that is your choice. You are a demographic that is not in their current market share. They can decide whether to try to develop products/marketing tools that does appeal to you as a consumer, or they can ignore you and focus on consumers that they feel they can sell more products at a higher margin too.
I'm not sure what conclusion you thought would be drawn from this scenario?
I admire your level of trust. You don't think that on such a scale, many of these people have "sold their soul"??
In what way? Because they have a product to sell and consumers buy it? That's called capitalism.
It certainly is. And on a cold level, I admire the capitalism genius behind it. I also value the ability to look at one's self in the mirror every morning, and I don't know how they do it.
I'm a trainer and help people get fit and healthier. If people get off their meds because of it, should I feel guilty because I may be impacting the packer at a pharmaceutical company?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
Obesity happens because of habitual behavior. And that's on the individual. Behaviors are learned and can be adjusted IF one is truly willing to do it. That can be evidenced time and time again.geneticexpectations wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »The only thing CICO adherents want is for people to stop conflating nutrition and weight loss. If you eat too much of the healthiest, cleanest foods, you will not lose weight. In order to lose weight, you need to eat less food energy than your body is using on a daily-ish basis.
To say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the human body is utterly ridiculous. It's akin to saying that we can't measure the distance a car has driven in kilometres because a car is a complex machine with hundreds of moving parts and half a dozen or more onboard computers. A kilometre is a kilometre just like a calorie is a calorie. We do not create energy out of nothing despite being incredibly complex organisms.
CICO is important for people to understand so that they are not frustrated, discouraged or overwhelmed. If you tell someone they can eat all the same foods, just less of them, they are more likely to be successful in their WEIGHT LOSS than if you tell them they have to follow a strict, restrictive food plan, not eat the things they enjoy and eat a whole bunch of things they don't enjoy all while eating less food than they are used to. Baby steps.
I suspect a lot of people's journey mirrors my own: first I reduced my calorie intake. Then, when I found I was not full enough or satiated on the foods I was used to eating due to the smaller portions, I explored nutrient rich, healthier food options that filled me me up for longer periods of time within my reduced calorie budget. Due to necessity, my diet has changed gradually, in a manageable way that I am comfortable with and now includes healthier options than it used to but it all started by altering nothing other than food quantities. Nutrition came after weight loss. I tried your prescribed method for 20 years but weight loss did not follow when I focused on "clean eating" and I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience.
If the laws of thermodynamics were so EASILY applied (of course they can be applied, just not EASILY) to the human body, there is a good chance I will have to find another line of work. I am employed because in practice, the application of these laws of thermodynamics are not translating to a reduction in obesity NOR ARE THEY TRANSLATING TO A REDUCTION OF DISEASE. We are a results oriented profession. We do what works for our patients. Telling them to eat less and move more only seems to translate to REAL WORLD RESULTS in a minority, which is not good enough given the scale of these problems. So we instead switch to what works.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »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).
Interesting. First, I note that you exclude olive oil from oils that can be healthful to include in your diet. That's hardly mainstream, of course, and illustrates how when we do discuss nutrition people are still going to be in disagreement. That's a point worth making, since your posts seem to start from the premise that someone who doesn't share your preferred way of eating is not interested in healthful eating whereas for me and some others who are extremely interested in such, paleo (your proclaimed way of eating) does not result in a more healthful diet than various other options. (I personally think I eat better when eating more legumes, for example, and somewhat less sat fat than often occurs with paleo.)
Second, I find it revealing that you think that a "natural" Twinkie would need magic to taste like a Twinkie and seem to express skepticism even about it tasting "kinda good." I recall some earlier posts from you (before you decided to play doctor on MFP and suggest that your interest in the subject was all about helping hard patients like us figure out how to eat) ;-) where you asserted that pre paleo you'd eaten lots of so called junk food, fast food, cake (perhaps store-bought, as it's hard to imagine someone's diet having that much homemade cake, who makes cake all the time). IMO, packaged "junk food" items play a role in societal obesity because they are so cheap and easy to get, not because they are especially delicious. The break-through is that they are now pretty good tasting, closer to homemade, but of course the homemade version (if you know what you are doing) is usually better.
Now would it be without any grains at all, any sugar at all, if we are talking about something like a cake? No, I'd imagine not. But the idea that it's beneficial from a taste perspective to use "industrial seed oils" and "mystery ingredients" is interesting.
Anyway, I don't recommend a homemade pie or cake on a daily basis, of course, but in moderation, like my grandparents would have done it? I find the idea that that's going to ruin my health pretty weak, assuming I eat a nutrient-dense, calorie-appropriate diet.
Same, of course, with the idea that concern about calories is less important than entirely avoiding pasta and olive oil, all bread, a bit of sugar in oatmeal, if one prefers that, etc.
One funny thing is that the claims about how one eats being the best medicine and that not eating the way that is being proclaimed as the best ever is what causes most illness is hardly one unique to paleo proponents. It's popular among some of the plant-based people too, and various others. The way people are told they should eat is different, though.
Personally, I think mostly eating nutrient-dense, calorie-appropriate meals and focusing on other things that are helpful (stress reduction, activity, adequate sleep) is probably more valuable for the same time than obsessing about having precisely the right diet.
Bigger point (again) is that acknowledging the truth of CICO does not mean that you think that what you eat is irrelevant or don't care about nutrition. If you find that people get annoyed with you on MFP, give some thought as to whether it might be that you are confusing "don't agree with you" with "don't care about anything but thinness." Or at least that your posts do. I used to find that kind of thing insulting and take it personally, but I've decided not to -- if one takes anything on MFP personally it's not worth posting here. If it gives you pleasure to assert that others here aren't interested in eating healthfully, well, okay.13 -
What does this have to do with CICO not being the whole equation?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).
??????
How about this: why isn't the prison population full of obese people if quality of food REALLY matters?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's only really relevant if you're still talking ONLY about weight not health.
If you want to look at the impact of food quality using prison populations you would need to compare the prevalence of disease amongst this cohort to those eating a 'better' quality but equal caloric diet in the community, in a similar socioeconomic group. Not just weight.
(I don't know how to put all my qualifications in as a little footer so I'll just leave them off, heh?)
1 -
Here's an interesting n=1 that supports my personal observation that healthy weight + adequate exercise leads to a long and active life regardless of how you get your macros/micros. My father will be 89 soon. He maintains his weight in the middle of his healthy range and does heavy lifting + moderate cardio 3X weekly*. He has no medical issues, eats a LOT of fast food, and would be appalled if you suggested he pay extra for organic vegetables or grass-fed beef. Both his sisters lived into their 90s eating mostly home-made food heavy on the pasta and sweets.
*He's fortunate enough to go to a no-frills gym used by some professional body builders who provide amazing support for him.8 -
@ninerbuff You bring up prison food quite a lot. Are you just guessing on the quality or do you know for a fact what prisoners eat?
I don't know about the U.S, but here in Australia the food served in prison is infinitely better than what the majority of inmates eat on the outside.
I know this because my ex is a prison guard in the mens jail, and i am well accustomed to what the women eat in the female prison.
They have a choice of toast or cereal with real milk and fruit for breakfast.
Lunch is usually meat and salad sandwiches/rolls. Alternated with cooked meals throughout the week.
Dinner is meat and veggies or soup, pretty much normal food that normal people eat on the outside.
Dessert could be icecream, jello, pudding, whatever.
1 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
OMG that's the polar opposite of what they get here.
But i guess we have to take into account the prison population.
Australia 2016- Roughly 39,005 people incarcerated.
America 2015 - Roughly 2.3 million incarcerated
I hope i posted the correct numbers, it was like a maze trying to find these digits!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions