Not all calories are equal
Replies
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?4 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect. And I think health (in many roundabout and complex ways) often reflects what our bodies biologically expect with what our bodies actually get. So yeah, I think nature is a bit smarter than us, in that reducing health to calories and nutritional content of a food may be too simplistic, and that many other x factors could come into play when it comes to overall health. Can I prove that junk food will deteriorate health (independent of calories and nutritional status)? Probably not. It's just my opinion, so I behave and express accordingly. But can another person prove that junk food does not deteriorate health and is just "health neutral" at worst? Probably not. But they have an opinion too. And I respect that. If there was conclusive evidence either way, everybody would be doing the same thing and forums like this wouldn't exist. So, to summarize this long answer, I don't know what happens if junk food is included in the diet, maybe bad health things, maybe ridiculously awesome health things, but personally I find that I can live without junk food and still enjoy food tremendously, so I stick with whole foods because I think they are a safer bet. Now, I know the next question naturally is "what is the definition of junk food", and of course that will vary with everybody, which I hope is recognized.
I'm hoping that this difference in opinion remains just that, because that's the best way to treat things when people say things differently. J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful. I think the conversations start deteriorating rapidly when the following things happen:
- People approach the issue from an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
- Emotional connotations creep into the subject matter.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect. And I think health (in many roundabout and complex ways) often reflects what our bodies biologically expect with what our bodies actually get. So yeah, I think nature is a bit smarter than us, in that reducing health to calories and nutritional content of a food may be too simplistic, and that many other x factors could come into play when it comes to overall health. Can I prove that junk food will deteriorate health (independent of calories and nutritional status)? Probably not. It's just my opinion, so I behave and express accordingly. But can another person prove that junk food does not deteriorate health and is just "health neutral" at worst? Probably not. But they have an opinion too. And I respect that. If there was conclusive evidence either way, everybody would be doing the same thing and forums like this wouldn't exist. So, to summarize this long answer, I don't know what happens if junk food is included in the diet, maybe bad health things, maybe ridiculously awesome health things, but personally I find that I can live without it and enjoy food tremendously, so I stick with whole foods because I think they are a safer bet.
I'm hoping that this difference in opinion remains just that, because that's the best way to treat things when people say things differently. J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful. I think the conversations start deteriorating rapidly when the following things happen:
- People approach the issue from an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
- Emotional connotations creep into the subject matter.
I can attest that ridiculously awesome health things happen, eating a variety of foods including 'junk' food, as I shared my recent health markers in an above post
And, as I'm coming up on almost 4 years of maintenance, (and almost 4 years of improved /great blood work), I can attest that not cutting out any foods I like, or boxing myself in with arbitrary rules and restrictions, is a sustainable method for long term weight loss adherence, for myself. Sounds like we've both found a method that works for us, which is what really matters, all said and done! 6 -
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
It doesn't really have anything to do with "what our body expects"...we are highly evolved to accommodate for a huge variety of things...if you look at the proliferation of processed foods, it's not really the fact that it's processed...it's the fact that it tends to be more calorie dense and nutrient deficient and readily available and cheap as *kitten*...it isn't all that satiating so people eat more of it. On top of that, look at frequency of eating out, whether that's fast food or a sit down restaurant...when I was a kid, eating out was basically a special occasion...I know people who eat out most of their meals every week...restaurant portions are huge, often 2-3 times what an appropriate portion should/would be.
Whole foods are more nutrient dense...thus they are more filling. I can eat a very high volume of whole foods for minimal calories...not so much with highly processed food stuffs.I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I would actually argue that for the most part, lots of varied low level movement wasn't the norm...physical labor was...I used to be a physical laborer (landscape construction)...it's anything but low level movement.I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Yes and no...I for the most part eat a whole foods based diet and I don't count calories...but the reality is that my occupation requires me to sit for prolonged periods of time which requires me to go out and do regular exercise...I personally wouldn't call it intense...most of my workouts are light to moderate intensity. I'm not hungry or worn down at all...I have plenty of energy. I don't really feel like I have to exert any willpower because I enjoy eating well...scratch, homemade meals tastes way better than highly processed, institutionalized foods so that really takes zero willpower...I'm a food snob and enjoy deliciousness, not slop...I enjoy the exercise that I do so that also takes about zero willpower.
0 -
Stevencloser and J72FIT, the other point I want to bring up is that I used the phrase "living on junk food" with a negative connotation in my original post, and and I think that is far different from the idea expressed by J72FIT and lemurcat's phrase of "fitting in junk food/including junk food" in a diet.
On other words, I am aware that the vast majority of the vocal participants on this forum do not "live on junk food" when doing IIFYM, but prefer to allow for relatively small volume indulgences for the sake of sustainability. I completely understand that concept in and of itself, and I also understand that that fact alone does make IIFYM very widely accessible compared to diets that appear more rigid on the surface like the Primal/paleo diet that I follow personally.
I also recognize that many participants on here have improved their lives tremendously and some have also achieved body compositions that are very impressive.0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect. And I think health (in many roundabout and complex ways) often reflects what our bodies biologically expect with what our bodies actually get. So yeah, I think nature is a bit smarter than us, in that reducing health to calories and nutritional content of a food may be too simplistic, and that many other x factors could come into play when it comes to overall health. Can I prove that junk food will deteriorate health (independent of calories and nutritional status)? Probably not. It's just my opinion, so I behave and express accordingly. But can another person prove that junk food does not deteriorate health and is just "health neutral" at worst? Probably not. But they have an opinion too. And I respect that. If there was conclusive evidence either way, everybody would be doing the same thing and forums like this wouldn't exist. So, to summarize this long answer, I don't know what happens if junk food is included in the diet, maybe bad health things, maybe ridiculously awesome health things, but personally I find that I can live without it and enjoy food tremendously, so I stick with whole foods because I think they are a safer bet.
I'm hoping that this difference in opinion remains just that, because that's the best way to treat things when people say things differently. J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful. I think the conversations start deteriorating rapidly when the following things happen:
- People approach the issue from an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
- Emotional connotations creep into the subject matter.
I can attest that ridiculously awesome health things happen, eating a variety of foods including 'junk' food, as I shared my recent health markers in an above post And, as I'm coming up on almost 4 years of maintenance, (and almost 4 years of improved /great blood work), I can attest that not cutting out any foods I like, or boxing myself in with arbitrary rules and restrictions, is a sustainable method for long term weight loss adherence, for myself. Sounds like we've both found a method that works for us, which is what really matters, all said and done
Absolutely agree. I just posted on the subject of results and adherence, but you beat me to it. I'll cheer anybody on who is pumped about how their changes have worked for them. I just think that along the way to that place, opinions may vary (sometimes strongly), and that's probably because of our own individual learning along the way plus the dramatic way the results have affected our lives. I just posted the above because I just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same side even if it seems we're on different ones.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.3 -
Calories are equal, food is not, it does not matter as long as you get adequate nutrients...
Yep, although I would add "without eating excess calories" and one could, I suppose, include in it the concept of avoiding things bad for us (either at all or in excessive amounts), although that normally would go along with getting adequate nutrients and appropriate calories anyway.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect. And I think health (in many roundabout and complex ways) often reflects what our bodies biologically expect with what our bodies actually get. So yeah, I think nature is a bit smarter than us, in that reducing health to calories and nutritional content of a food may be too simplistic, and that many other x factors could come into play when it comes to overall health. Can I prove that junk food will deteriorate health (independent of calories and nutritional status)? Probably not. It's just my opinion, so I behave and express accordingly. But can another person prove that junk food does not deteriorate health and is just "health neutral" at worst? Probably not. But they have an opinion too. And I respect that. If there was conclusive evidence either way, everybody would be doing the same thing and forums like this wouldn't exist. So, to summarize this long answer, I don't know what happens if junk food is included in the diet, maybe bad health things, maybe ridiculously awesome health things, but personally I find that I can live without junk food and still enjoy food tremendously, so I stick with whole foods because I think they are a safer bet. Now, I know the next question naturally is "what is the definition of junk food", and of course that will vary with everybody, which I hope is recognized.
I'm hoping that this difference in opinion remains just that, because that's the best way to treat things when people say things differently. J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful. I think the conversations start deteriorating rapidly when the following things happen:
- People approach the issue from an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
- Emotional connotations creep into the subject matter.
In my experience, all science can give us is a platform to ask better questions until we finally discover the truth. So until then, we'll all just to the best we can with the info we have...0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect.
Point one: you later indicate that you are equating "interfered with by man" and "junk food," but they are not the same thing. There's not a clearcut definition of "junk food," but I'd normally understand it to mean "high cal and not high in nutrients," which could be some ultraprocessed item, but also could be some homemade from whole foods item.
Point two: what's the support for the idea that our bodies "expect" anything or for the idea that man messing around with stuff is not natural? For example, we messed around a lot with corn--does this mean that my body can't handle the locally-grown corn on the cob I look forward to every year? It's only our interference in the natural that allows me to eat salmon (smoked and frozen) in Chicago or to go to the store now and buy broccoli and frozen strawberries (let alone to drink the black coffee I'm currently enjoying). If I go to Protein Bar (local chain) and get one of my favorite salads (despite the name), which includes lots of processed stuff (in addition to being prepared in a chain): Superfood Vegan Salad (Roasted organic tofu, kale, toasted hemp seed blend, chickpeas, and house-made Creamy Chia dressing over our Super 6 Salad Mix -- the mix is romaine, spinach, broccoli, carrots, kale, and purple cabbage) is my body actually going to perceive a difference between that and a salad I make at home? Or let's take cashew milk -- I make it at home because I like it better and usually want some fat in a smoothie, but if I bought it would my nutrition or health be worse? Would my body even know? If I add protein powder or greek yogurt (both processed in different ways) is my body unable to get nutrients from them? How does that work? Does it mean I also can't get nutrients from the vegetables and fruit I'm also eating?
Point three: how far back does this go? As noted, many fruits and veg exist in current form only because we messed around with them. We don't have to be stuck in what's local and seasonal (which means those of us in the north have a lot more produce in the winter) because we messed around with nature. What about dairy? My body is adapted to dairy well -- I have the lactose persistence gene -- and that's only because my ancestors started messing around with nature in that way early on. Should I still pretend that it's not natural, and ignore my body?
Oh, and going back to the topic of the thread, how is Nestle syrup and cream meaningfully more "natural" (or healthy) than creamer, even apart from the weirdness of claiming 42 calories of stuff added to coffee defines the nutritional content of one's diet or affects whether one gains or loses (the claim that was actually made).4 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »Stevencloser and J72FIT, the other point I want to bring up is that I used the phrase "living on junk food" with a negative connotation in my original post, and and I think that is far different from the idea expressed by J72FIT and lemurcat's phrase of "fitting in junk food/including junk food" in a diet.
On other words, I am aware that the vast majority of the vocal participants on this forum do not "live on junk food" when doing IIFYM, but prefer to allow for relatively small volume indulgences for the sake of sustainability. I completely understand that concept in and of itself, and I also understand that that fact alone does make IIFYM very widely accessible compared to diets that appear more rigid on the surface like the Primal/paleo diet that I follow personally.
I also recognize that many participants on here have improved their lives tremendously and some have also achieved body compositions that are very impressive.
I like to view it as being able to include all foods in my diet, if I want them. IMO, "health" food and "junk" food are concepts we have created. Further, IMO, food just food. What is healthier, a twinkie or a banana? I would say they are the same because if all you ate was one or the other you would be malnourished in both instances. The value of any food can only be measured in the context of the diet as a whole. At the end of the day, your diet either does or does not give the body what it needs...8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.
Ok, I'll try to reclarify:
My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition. That's it.
I absolutely did not mean to imply that any, and I mean any, of the posters I was interacting with were not concerned about health. I specifically used the term "live on junk food" in a negative connotation (and sure, that is based on my opinions and beliefs as discussed). But of utmost relevance, nobody that I have interacted with on this thread has admitted to "living on junk food". So I'm pretty sure that that applies to none of you who have responded to my posts, and you have certainly clarified that you yourself do not "live" on junk food.
I never did write that people who care about calories don't care about health, and if I may venture, I think you may have thought that I did. And I think you addressed that that isn't the case. It was a misinterpretation on your part.
When I misinterpret something, I apologize, because, well I think that sets a good example. So, I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that you were annoyed by disagreement rather than you being annoyed because you thought that I thought that people other than me were uninterested in health.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are equal, food is not, it does not matter as long as you get adequate nutrients...
Yep, although I would add "without eating excess calories" and one could, I suppose, include in it the concept of avoiding things bad for us (either at all or in excessive amounts), although that normally would go along with getting adequate nutrients and appropriate calories anyway.
True, and depending on the individuals goals, that number will vary...0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful.
In the words of Art DeVany, "there is no failure, only feedback." At the end of the day, all we can do with the information we have is ask better questions until we discover the truth...2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Here's a research review which may interest you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
Frame that within the context of "occasionally" as opposed to "living on fast food" and I think the data is highly relevant.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.
Ok, I'll try to reclarify:
My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition. That's it.
Okay, this is a more interesting topic for discussion, but as I indicated in my other post, I think we are defining "junk food" differently, so I will ask you to give a definition.
Also, I noticed above that you are paleo, and as I experimented with paleo I know a decent amount about it and will say that I completely disagree with the notion that whole grains, dairy, and legumes are actively negative. (Also, to my knowledge paleo allows for lots of stuff I'd personally call "junk food," but obviously 2 paleo followers, 3 opinions, right?)I absolutely did not mean to imply that any, and I mean any, of the posters I was interacting with were not concerned about health. I specifically used the term "live on junk food" in a negative connotation (and sure, that is based on my opinions and beliefs as discussed). But of utmost relevance, nobody that I have interacted with on this thread has admitted to "living on junk food". So I'm pretty sure that that applies to none of you who have responded to my posts, and you have certainly clarified that you yourself do not "live" on junk food.
Thank you. As noted, my confusion came from the fact that you then went on to make a point of saying your background was different from everyone else's when talking about being concerned about health, and I thought that was suggesting that you were so concerned and others were not. However, I indicated that I might be misunderstanding, which was a request that you clarify if I was wrong. Glad that you have done so and that that was not what you meant, and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement (which I am not annoyed about, I am pleased that you have clarified where you are coming from).
I would further add that to the extent I consider things "junk food" (which I do, I think it's a reasonably neutral descriptor that can be useful and isn't really emotionally charged like "bad food" or whatever), I consider both of OP's coffee additions -- the one she thinks caused weight gain and the one she thinks caused weight loss -- to be in the category of junk food, so I find this a kind of strange thread to morph into this discussion. But hey, that's cool.
Anyway, I am fond of including some kind of post-dinner extra, often a high cal/low nutrient item like ice cream or gelato or other frozen dessert (sometimes homemade, sometimes not) or cheese, and I certainly don't agree that those are actively bad for my health within the context of a good overall diet, so again we do disagree. I also don't agree that choosing a meal that includes some extra calories just because I enjoy the taste -- whether it be a thin crust pizza at a local Italian restaurant or homemade pulled pork or a meal out for Ethiopian or Indian -- is bad for my health vs. a more nutrient only focused meal of salmon, vegetables, and sweet potato, with limited added oil or butter. I don't see how this is much different than adding in the post dinner extra, either.I never did write that people who care about calories don't care about health, and if I may venture, I think you may have thought that I did. And I think you addressed that that isn't the case. It was a misinterpretation on your part.
And I showed how I got that interpretation in good faith and that I indicated initially that I might be misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying.When I misinterpret something, I apologize, because, well I think that sets a good example. So, I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that you were annoyed by disagreement rather than you being annoyed because you thought that I thought that people other than me were uninterested in health.
I still don't see how you got this from my post, but I will accept it as a good faith misinterpretation and appreciate the apology (although it's not necessary, acknowledgement that that was not what was said was all I wanted).
Now perhaps we can discuss the actual topic of disagreement?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are equal, food is not, it does not matter as long as you get adequate nutrients...
Yep, although I would add "without eating excess calories" and one could, I suppose, include in it the concept of avoiding things bad for us (either at all or in excessive amounts), although that normally would go along with getting adequate nutrients and appropriate calories anyway.
True, and depending on the individuals goals, that number will vary...
Agreed.1 -
Calories are equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard isn't going to make you gain any more weight than 100 calories of organic vegetables would.
Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
In terms of weight loss, though? No. It's not the creamer. Re-evaluate what you're doing. Are you being 100% honest? Does your scale need re-calibrated? Are you eating a lot of salt? Getting your proper water intake? Is it that time of the month?
Lots of things can cause weight gain. A teeny tiny amount of coffee creamer ain't one of them.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect.
Point one: you later indicate that you are equating "interfered with by man" and "junk food," but they are not the same thing. There's not a clearcut definition of "junk food," but I'd normally understand it to mean "high cal and not high in nutrients," which could be some ultraprocessed item, but also could be some homemade from whole foods item.
Point two: what's the support for the idea that our bodies "expect" anything or for the idea that man messing around with stuff is not natural? For example, we messed around a lot with corn--does this mean that my body can't handle the locally-grown corn on the cob I look forward to every year? It's only our interference in the natural that allows me to eat salmon (smoked and frozen) in Chicago or to go to the store now and buy broccoli and frozen strawberries (let alone to drink the black coffee I'm currently enjoying). If I go to Protein Bar (local chain) and get one of my favorite salads (despite the name), which includes lots of processed stuff (in addition to being prepared in a chain): Superfood Vegan Salad (Roasted organic tofu, kale, toasted hemp seed blend, chickpeas, and house-made Creamy Chia dressing over our Super 6 Salad Mix -- the mix is romaine, spinach, broccoli, carrots, kale, and purple cabbage) is my body actually going to perceive a difference between that and a salad I make at home? Or let's take cashew milk -- I make it at home because I like it better and usually want some fat in a smoothie, but if I bought it would my nutrition or health be worse? Would my body even know? If I add protein powder or greek yogurt (both processed in different ways) is my body unable to get nutrients from them? How does that work? Does it mean I also can't get nutrients from the vegetables and fruit I'm also eating?
Point three: how far back does this go? As noted, many fruits and veg exist in current form only because we messed around with them. We don't have to be stuck in what's local and seasonal (which means those of us in the north have a lot more produce in the winter) because we messed around with nature. What about dairy? My body is adapted to dairy well -- I have the lactose persistence gene -- and that's only because my ancestors started messing around with nature in that way early on. Should I still pretend that it's not natural, and ignore my body?
Oh, and going back to the topic of the thread, how is Nestle syrup and cream meaningfully more "natural" (or healthy) than creamer, even apart from the weirdness of claiming 42 calories of stuff added to coffee defines the nutritional content of one's diet or affects whether one gains or loses (the claim that was actually made).
Forget the creamer. We're off that topic and lets just stay that way.
Point one: I addressed this in a previous post, we will all have definitions of junk food. I have my own criteria which consist of details that would derail the convo a bit. For me, "interfered with by man" and "junk food" are a rough approximate to serve my point. Based on my definition. But you have your own, and so do others.
Point two: To answer your questions briefly, I try not to view food in absolute black and white terms. I prefer to look at food on a "grey" spectrum. When I say "less interfered with by man", the operative word is "less", characteristic of a spectrum in between, not one absolute end or the other. The level of interference from my perspective is up to the consumer to learn about, decipher their comfort level, and then decide.
I avoid black and white thinking. Because if you google black and white thinking, you will get a lot of hits about "high conflict personalities".
Also, for what it's worth, I don't eat corn (or grains) for the reasons you are alluding to, I eat wild salmon (not farmed) and apply the same "less interference by man" to all animal products actually, and I don't eat powders in general (I don't feel so good after eating them), BUT, I also do a lot of what you do and make pretty much all of my food at home. Why? Because it is what "I", "I", "I" choose to do and what I feel comfortable and congruent with. Would my body "know" if we swapped diets? Would yours? Maybe. Maybe not. I think we have chosen our diets because we have each read our own things and experimented with them. I don't know what the right answer is, but I certainly know what I'm comfortable with based on my journey so far.
What's the support for that our bodies "expect" anything? Good question. Are there any randomized controlled studies that support this? Of course not. Just my rationale based on what I've read and my own trials and errors. But does that make it right for everyone to adhere to? I recognize that it doesn't. But being intellectually honest is being able to do what I just did. State my opinion and also admit that I may not be "right" in the same breath. So if you ask if there is support for our bodies expecting anything, that same person if intellectually honest should also ask if there is support for out bodies eating things that are less in line with what is expected evolutionarily. Again, "less", not "not". I've asked both questions, weighed both, then chose. The key is not what you choose, but the key is if you ask and address both sides of the argument despite which "side" you choose.
Point three: Agree with you that fruits and veggies are significantly cultivated. For me that degree of cultivation is more acceptable for veggies, but I try to make my fruit consumption 80% wild (blueberries where I'm from). Either way, along a SPECTRUM, cultivated produce sits better with me than packaged stuff. Again. just me. Maybe not you. AND I THINK THAT'S JUST FINE. I eat dairy too, but I try to stick to grass fed, high fat (like as high fat as possible). I don't pretend that it's not "natural". I never try to be too dogmatic in that "Paleo" way, but just used the principles as more of a guide. For me, dairy has fat soluble vitamins, CLA and can taste damn good.1 -
Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
Oh, I don't think 100 calories of lard would leave me hungry. I expect I'd feel sick and not like eating at all. But with a more realistic example, let's say you can choose between 20 calories of spinach and cucumbers with a high cal ranch dressing for a total of 200 calories or a salad loaded with a variety of vegetables (some higher cal like roasted carrots, brussels sprouts, and maybe some roasted potatoes) and a very low cal dressing with mostly vinegar and a bit of olive oil for, again, a total of 200 calories. One is high fat, low everything else, and the other is high fiber, high carb, low fat. Some people will find the first more filling, whereas others (like me) will find the second more filling. Point is that what is satiating varies.
More significant point, and one necessary for the clarity of these discussions, is that this is NOT a difference between "calories" but between foods. People tend to use "calories" as if it were a synonym for "foods," as if there were such a thing as a spinach calorie and a cheese calorie, and that's not the case. It's worth being pedantic due to the confusion this causes in these discussions. Calories are just a unit of measurement. No one says that spinach and cheese are identical, or that protein and fat are identical. Calories are, though.5 -
Calories are equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard isn't going to make you gain any more weight than 100 calories of organic vegetables would.
Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
In terms of weight loss, though? No. It's not the creamer. Re-evaluate what you're doing. Are you being 100% honest? Does your scale need re-calibrated? Are you eating a lot of salt? Getting your proper water intake? Is it that time of the month?
Lots of things can cause weight gain. A teeny tiny amount of coffee creamer ain't one of them.
This depends on the individual...2 -
Calories are equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard isn't going to make you gain any more weight than 100 calories of organic vegetables would.
Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
In terms of weight loss, though? No. It's not the creamer. Re-evaluate what you're doing. Are you being 100% honest? Does your scale need re-calibrated? Are you eating a lot of salt? Getting your proper water intake? Is it that time of the month?
Lots of things can cause weight gain. A teeny tiny amount of coffee creamer ain't one of them.
This depends on the individual...
100 calories of lard isn't going to be very much at all in volume -- wouldn't it be about a tablespoon or so? I don't imagine that would make anyone feel especially terrible. I mean, I don't think just eating a spoonful of lard would be *pleasant*, but it probably isn't going to make anyone feel ill.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.
Ok, I'll try to reclarify:
My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition. That's it.
Okay, this is a more interesting topic for discussion, but as I indicated in my other post, I think we are defining "junk food" differently, so I will ask you to give a definition.
Also, I noticed above that you are paleo, and as I experimented with paleo I know a decent amount about it and will say that I completely disagree with the notion that whole grains, dairy, and legumes are actively negative. (Also, to my knowledge paleo allows for lots of stuff I'd personally call "junk food," but obviously 2 paleo followers, 3 opinions, right?)I absolutely did not mean to imply that any, and I mean any, of the posters I was interacting with were not concerned about health. I specifically used the term "live on junk food" in a negative connotation (and sure, that is based on my opinions and beliefs as discussed). But of utmost relevance, nobody that I have interacted with on this thread has admitted to "living on junk food". So I'm pretty sure that that applies to none of you who have responded to my posts, and you have certainly clarified that you yourself do not "live" on junk food.
Thank you. As noted, my confusion came from the fact that you then went on to make a point of saying your background was different from everyone else's when talking about being concerned about health, and I thought that was suggesting that you were so concerned and others were not. However, I indicated that I might be misunderstanding, which was a request that you clarify if I was wrong. Glad that you have done so and that that was not what you meant, and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement (which I am not annoyed about, I am pleased that you have clarified where you are coming from).
I would further add that to the extent I consider things "junk food" (which I do, I think it's a reasonably neutral descriptor that can be useful and isn't really emotionally charged like "bad food" or whatever), I consider both of OP's coffee additions -- the one she thinks caused weight gain and the one she thinks caused weight loss -- to be in the category of junk food, so I find this a kind of strange thread to morph into this discussion. But hey, that's cool.
Anyway, I am fond of including some kind of post-dinner extra, often a high cal/low nutrient item like ice cream or gelato or other frozen dessert (sometimes homemade, sometimes not) or cheese, and I certainly don't agree that those are actively bad for my health within the context of a good overall diet, so again we do disagree. I also don't agree that choosing a meal that includes some extra calories just because I enjoy the taste -- whether it be a thin crust pizza at a local Italian restaurant or homemade pulled pork or a meal out for Ethiopian or Indian -- is bad for my health vs. a more nutrient only focused meal of salmon, vegetables, and sweet potato, with limited added oil or butter. I don't see how this is much different than adding in the post dinner extra, either.I never did write that people who care about calories don't care about health, and if I may venture, I think you may have thought that I did. And I think you addressed that that isn't the case. It was a misinterpretation on your part.
And I showed how I got that interpretation in good faith and that I indicated initially that I might be misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying.When I misinterpret something, I apologize, because, well I think that sets a good example. So, I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that you were annoyed by disagreement rather than you being annoyed because you thought that I thought that people other than me were uninterested in health.
I still don't see how you got this from my post, but I will accept it as a good faith misinterpretation and appreciate the apology (although it's not necessary, acknowledgement that that was not what was said was all I wanted).
Now perhaps we can discuss the actual topic of disagreement?
Sure. I'm bouncing back and forth between work stuff and posts are long. Just to clarify, this is the disagreement you want to address?:
"and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement "0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
Oh, I don't think 100 calories of lard would leave me hungry. I expect I'd feel sick and not like eating at all. But with a more realistic example, let's say you can choose between 20 calories of spinach and cucumbers with a high cal ranch dressing for a total of 200 calories or a salad loaded with a variety of vegetables (some higher cal like roasted carrots, brussels sprouts, and maybe some roasted potatoes) and a very low cal dressing with mostly vinegar and a bit of olive oil for, again, a total of 200 calories. One is high fat, low everything else, and the other is high fiber, high carb, low fat. Some people will find the first more filling, whereas others (like me) will find the second more filling. Point is that what is satiating varies.
More significant point, and one necessary for the clarity of these discussions, is that this is NOT a difference between "calories" but between foods. People tend to use "calories" as if it were a synonym for "foods," as if there were such a thing as a spinach calorie and a cheese calorie, and that's not the case. It's worth being pedantic due to the confusion this causes in these discussions. Calories are just a unit of measurement. No one says that spinach and cheese are identical, or that protein and fat are identical. Calories are, though.
Yes, that is more or less what I was trying to communicate. I have a habit of using extremes as examples for discussions like these because, for me, when I just started and didn't understand how calories worked, the phrase that got me to realize that I can still lose weight despite not being able to constantly afford fresh produce was, "You can still lose weight if you eat nothing but twinkies, so long as your calories are at a deficit."
The extremist mindset made it click for me, so it's just what I end up going to when I try to explain things myself.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.
Ok, I'll try to reclarify:
My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition. That's it.
Okay, this is a more interesting topic for discussion, but as I indicated in my other post, I think we are defining "junk food" differently, so I will ask you to give a definition.
Also, I noticed above that you are paleo, and as I experimented with paleo I know a decent amount about it and will say that I completely disagree with the notion that whole grains, dairy, and legumes are actively negative. (Also, to my knowledge paleo allows for lots of stuff I'd personally call "junk food," but obviously 2 paleo followers, 3 opinions, right?)I absolutely did not mean to imply that any, and I mean any, of the posters I was interacting with were not concerned about health. I specifically used the term "live on junk food" in a negative connotation (and sure, that is based on my opinions and beliefs as discussed). But of utmost relevance, nobody that I have interacted with on this thread has admitted to "living on junk food". So I'm pretty sure that that applies to none of you who have responded to my posts, and you have certainly clarified that you yourself do not "live" on junk food.
Thank you. As noted, my confusion came from the fact that you then went on to make a point of saying your background was different from everyone else's when talking about being concerned about health, and I thought that was suggesting that you were so concerned and others were not. However, I indicated that I might be misunderstanding, which was a request that you clarify if I was wrong. Glad that you have done so and that that was not what you meant, and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement (which I am not annoyed about, I am pleased that you have clarified where you are coming from).
I would further add that to the extent I consider things "junk food" (which I do, I think it's a reasonably neutral descriptor that can be useful and isn't really emotionally charged like "bad food" or whatever), I consider both of OP's coffee additions -- the one she thinks caused weight gain and the one she thinks caused weight loss -- to be in the category of junk food, so I find this a kind of strange thread to morph into this discussion. But hey, that's cool.
Anyway, I am fond of including some kind of post-dinner extra, often a high cal/low nutrient item like ice cream or gelato or other frozen dessert (sometimes homemade, sometimes not) or cheese, and I certainly don't agree that those are actively bad for my health within the context of a good overall diet, so again we do disagree. I also don't agree that choosing a meal that includes some extra calories just because I enjoy the taste -- whether it be a thin crust pizza at a local Italian restaurant or homemade pulled pork or a meal out for Ethiopian or Indian -- is bad for my health vs. a more nutrient only focused meal of salmon, vegetables, and sweet potato, with limited added oil or butter. I don't see how this is much different than adding in the post dinner extra, either.I never did write that people who care about calories don't care about health, and if I may venture, I think you may have thought that I did. And I think you addressed that that isn't the case. It was a misinterpretation on your part.
And I showed how I got that interpretation in good faith and that I indicated initially that I might be misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying.When I misinterpret something, I apologize, because, well I think that sets a good example. So, I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that you were annoyed by disagreement rather than you being annoyed because you thought that I thought that people other than me were uninterested in health.
I still don't see how you got this from my post, but I will accept it as a good faith misinterpretation and appreciate the apology (although it's not necessary, acknowledgement that that was not what was said was all I wanted).
Now perhaps we can discuss the actual topic of disagreement?
It just occurred to me that maybe you may have been referring to the creamer topic of OPs post. re: actual topic of disagreement. (ie, you want me to stop taking this thread for a ride).1 -
I recommend switching the labels only and checking again to see if switching labels has any effect .8
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
Oh, I don't think 100 calories of lard would leave me hungry. I expect I'd feel sick and not like eating at all. But with a more realistic example, let's say you can choose between 20 calories of spinach and cucumbers with a high cal ranch dressing for a total of 200 calories or a salad loaded with a variety of vegetables (some higher cal like roasted carrots, brussels sprouts, and maybe some roasted potatoes) and a very low cal dressing with mostly vinegar and a bit of olive oil for, again, a total of 200 calories. One is high fat, low everything else, and the other is high fiber, high carb, low fat. Some people will find the first more filling, whereas others (like me) will find the second more filling. Point is that what is satiating varies.
More significant point, and one necessary for the clarity of these discussions, is that this is NOT a difference between "calories" but between foods. People tend to use "calories" as if it were a synonym for "foods," as if there were such a thing as a spinach calorie and a cheese calorie, and that's not the case. It's worth being pedantic due to the confusion this causes in these discussions. Calories are just a unit of measurement. No one says that spinach and cheese are identical, or that protein and fat are identical. Calories are, though.
That last paragraph I think is a very fair point.
Regarding the 100 calories of lard... I may have been guilty of eating that straight at one point... it was borderline oversatiating.
Last week, I had kale fried in a good amount of bacon fat and then added the bacon in pieces. It was ludicrously delicious, but I felt so full afterwards that it was kind of uncomfortable.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.
Ok, I'll try to reclarify:
My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition. That's it.
Okay, this is a more interesting topic for discussion, but as I indicated in my other post, I think we are defining "junk food" differently, so I will ask you to give a definition.
Also, I noticed above that you are paleo, and as I experimented with paleo I know a decent amount about it and will say that I completely disagree with the notion that whole grains, dairy, and legumes are actively negative. (Also, to my knowledge paleo allows for lots of stuff I'd personally call "junk food," but obviously 2 paleo followers, 3 opinions, right?)I absolutely did not mean to imply that any, and I mean any, of the posters I was interacting with were not concerned about health. I specifically used the term "live on junk food" in a negative connotation (and sure, that is based on my opinions and beliefs as discussed). But of utmost relevance, nobody that I have interacted with on this thread has admitted to "living on junk food". So I'm pretty sure that that applies to none of you who have responded to my posts, and you have certainly clarified that you yourself do not "live" on junk food.
Thank you. As noted, my confusion came from the fact that you then went on to make a point of saying your background was different from everyone else's when talking about being concerned about health, and I thought that was suggesting that you were so concerned and others were not. However, I indicated that I might be misunderstanding, which was a request that you clarify if I was wrong. Glad that you have done so and that that was not what you meant, and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement (which I am not annoyed about, I am pleased that you have clarified where you are coming from).
I would further add that to the extent I consider things "junk food" (which I do, I think it's a reasonably neutral descriptor that can be useful and isn't really emotionally charged like "bad food" or whatever), I consider both of OP's coffee additions -- the one she thinks caused weight gain and the one she thinks caused weight loss -- to be in the category of junk food, so I find this a kind of strange thread to morph into this discussion. But hey, that's cool.
Anyway, I am fond of including some kind of post-dinner extra, often a high cal/low nutrient item like ice cream or gelato or other frozen dessert (sometimes homemade, sometimes not) or cheese, and I certainly don't agree that those are actively bad for my health within the context of a good overall diet, so again we do disagree. I also don't agree that choosing a meal that includes some extra calories just because I enjoy the taste -- whether it be a thin crust pizza at a local Italian restaurant or homemade pulled pork or a meal out for Ethiopian or Indian -- is bad for my health vs. a more nutrient only focused meal of salmon, vegetables, and sweet potato, with limited added oil or butter. I don't see how this is much different than adding in the post dinner extra, either.I never did write that people who care about calories don't care about health, and if I may venture, I think you may have thought that I did. And I think you addressed that that isn't the case. It was a misinterpretation on your part.
And I showed how I got that interpretation in good faith and that I indicated initially that I might be misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying.When I misinterpret something, I apologize, because, well I think that sets a good example. So, I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that you were annoyed by disagreement rather than you being annoyed because you thought that I thought that people other than me were uninterested in health.
I still don't see how you got this from my post, but I will accept it as a good faith misinterpretation and appreciate the apology (although it's not necessary, acknowledgement that that was not what was said was all I wanted).
Now perhaps we can discuss the actual topic of disagreement?
Sure. I'm bouncing back and forth between work stuff and posts are long. Just to clarify, this is the disagreement you want to address?:
"and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement "
That's what I thought you had identified as the disagreement, yeah (you said you think junk food is actively negative).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions