"You can eat whaver you want, as long as you eat at a deficit" is true, but it's garbage advice.
Replies
-
geneticsteacher wrote: »Eggs are bad. Eggs are good.
Eat high carb/low protein. Eat high protein/low carb.
Coffee is bad. Coffee is good.
Eat low fat. Eat high fat.
Don't eat saturated fat/cholesterol. Saturated fat/cholesterol may not be bad for you.
Don't eat white carbs, gluten. Eat only clean foods (This one personally drives me nuts).
One of the latest is don't eat food with chemicals in it. Good luck with that.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3iG6Hrh4v08
0 -
fitoverfortymom wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick comment for @dfwesq Like you, I've moderated board elsewhere. But there is a different "feel" here when it comes to new posters. Anywhere else I've posted, people who come to a board lurk first to get a feel for what the board is like, and that simply doesn't happen here. I've no idea why or maybe the boards I participate in are different and this is the norm.
Yes, this is one thing that has surprised me too. I lurked first and read some of the stickies, and I didn't start a thread for ages and ages. Because that was my pattern. I also always searched for threads on a topic of interest before posting, although I know we are not supposed to suggest that that would be better forum behavior.
I think it's kind of odd that people don't here, but I am sure we are all biased by where we are most familiar with.
I am also used to forums where debate is common (sometimes polite, sometimes less so, depending on the forum, although I like polite better). Here lots of people seem to take disagreement as, well, mean, which I find puzzling. My main other forum was a book one, but I've also played around or had a lengthier relationship in forums that discussed politics, law, religion, and music -- all topics that can be contentious (and indeed I recall a knock-down blow-out about Great Gatsby back in the day and a long debate about postmodern lit (mostly what it is and does it suck or not), so the internet can be weird).
I get the sense that the newbie posters on MFP are more likely to be familiar with areas of the internet I am not (YouTube followers, instagram, of course FB), and less so some of the areas I find most interesting (and some maybe aren't particularly into forums or different forum cultures -- this one definitely is moderated much more than the others I've been part of, even though they were quite friendly overall, so nothing bad came of light moderation and self-moderation).
I admit that all of these impressions may be related to the fact that I am old (I remember usenet), and I never did fitness internet pre MFP.
I have to agree with this. I too lurked for a long time before posting anything. I read stickies in any forum I visit before I do anything else. It always puzzled me how people can post questions that a few seconds on Google can answer as well as not read anything before posting.
I was also a member of a certain popular baby board and if you want to see mean drop a cloth diapering is the only way thread and watch the explosion. :laugh:
Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
Cloth vs. disposable and breast vs. bottle, oh memories! Don't forget c-sections, VBACs, and the holiness of unmedicated childbirth! I'm so *kitten* happy my kids are older now and don't give a crap about how they were birthed, diapered, or fed. Age and experience has given me some perspective I didn't have as a new mom.
I wonder if all those natural childbirth moms ever received their medal in the mail.
2 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Right here! I would rather have a lot of food than a little bit. If I have some teensy-weensy, tee-niney, pigmy sized pea shaped piece of something magically delicious I will not be satisfied. I save the junk for when I REALLY want it. I may blow my calories that day but man is it ever worth it when I do! Some people really are content with two Oreos or a half-cup of ice cream. I I eat that and it's gonna be on like Donkey-Kong.
I consider this a form of moderation too, though.
One form is eat a serving (or whatever amount regularly fits in your calories) more regularly. For example, I went through a stage where I had about 200 calories for dessert every night. I'd have ice cream or cheese usually, or else a more indulgent dinner.
Another is a rare blow out. There are some things I'm not interested in eating in moderation or are hard to fit -- a Mexican restaurant, Indian restaurant, Ethiopian restaurant, rare multi-course tasting menu at a new place, maybe. So I do them more rarely (at maintenance it doesn't have to be that rarely, as I tend to do a weekend long run and long bike, but depends), but when I do them I don't try to fit a calorie goal or skip the naan and get the tandoori chicken and so on. I eat what I want and without really worrying about it and since it's not something I do weekly regardless of workout it doesn't matter. It's a form of moderation. If I felt like that about ice cream or cake (I really don't, I'd rather just have a sensible amount and not overdo), then I'd follow a similar schedule there. But I wouldn't claim that meant "eat what you want within your calories" didn't work, since that would still be what I was doing.
I love pie, I have it basically on holidays only anymore, because baking it is a bad idea unless I have other people to eat it, and because if I bake it I will want more than a piece. I haven't cut out pie and wouldn't tell anyone else you need to cut out pie. 'Cause that's not so, even though I don't eat much pie anymore.
Moderation comes in many forms. I choose to abstain more often. However the kind of moderation most often referred to around here is the "make it fit on a daily basis" moderation.
It's often referred to because it's worked for the majority. You'll notice that the veteran posters that have been here a long time--have lost the weight and are maintaining using IIFYM. Over the years I've seen alot of people posting that are just spinning their wheels--eliminating one "bad food" after another. They are usually VERY unhappy. We try to explain how it works. Take it or leave it--it's just free advice.8 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »fitoverfortymom wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick comment for @dfwesq Like you, I've moderated board elsewhere. But there is a different "feel" here when it comes to new posters. Anywhere else I've posted, people who come to a board lurk first to get a feel for what the board is like, and that simply doesn't happen here. I've no idea why or maybe the boards I participate in are different and this is the norm.
Yes, this is one thing that has surprised me too. I lurked first and read some of the stickies, and I didn't start a thread for ages and ages. Because that was my pattern. I also always searched for threads on a topic of interest before posting, although I know we are not supposed to suggest that that would be better forum behavior.
I think it's kind of odd that people don't here, but I am sure we are all biased by where we are most familiar with.
I am also used to forums where debate is common (sometimes polite, sometimes less so, depending on the forum, although I like polite better). Here lots of people seem to take disagreement as, well, mean, which I find puzzling. My main other forum was a book one, but I've also played around or had a lengthier relationship in forums that discussed politics, law, religion, and music -- all topics that can be contentious (and indeed I recall a knock-down blow-out about Great Gatsby back in the day and a long debate about postmodern lit (mostly what it is and does it suck or not), so the internet can be weird).
I get the sense that the newbie posters on MFP are more likely to be familiar with areas of the internet I am not (YouTube followers, instagram, of course FB), and less so some of the areas I find most interesting (and some maybe aren't particularly into forums or different forum cultures -- this one definitely is moderated much more than the others I've been part of, even though they were quite friendly overall, so nothing bad came of light moderation and self-moderation).
I admit that all of these impressions may be related to the fact that I am old (I remember usenet), and I never did fitness internet pre MFP.
I have to agree with this. I too lurked for a long time before posting anything. I read stickies in any forum I visit before I do anything else. It always puzzled me how people can post questions that a few seconds on Google can answer as well as not read anything before posting.
I was also a member of a certain popular baby board and if you want to see mean drop a cloth diapering is the only way thread and watch the explosion. :laugh:
Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
Cloth vs. disposable and breast vs. bottle, oh memories! Don't forget c-sections, VBACs, and the holiness of unmedicated childbirth! I'm so *kitten* happy my kids are older now and don't give a crap about how they were birthed, diapered, or fed. Age and experience has given me some perspective I didn't have as a new mom.
I wonder if all those natural childbirth moms ever received their medal in the mail.
7 -
AntoinetteAngus wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »BlueSkyShoal wrote: »Thumbs up on the Snorlax picture, I love Pokemon.
I do think that a lot of the cheerful talk about how "you can eat ANYTHING and lose weight!" needs a footnote: "You can eat anything, but if it's high in calories you can only have a tiny bit."
Now personally, if I order a pizza I don't want to eat just one slice, hold the breadsticks. Sure, cold pizza is a great snack the next morning, but there's something especially delightful about a piping hot pizza with the cheese still gooey (and breadsticks on the side.)
What I do is I have days where I eat over my "normal" calories without worrying about it, and then I eat under the normal calories the next day. (This works best if the pig-out meal was dinner, since you usually still feel pretty full the next morning.) I don't consider that to be "a cheat day". It's not cheating, it's just moving the calories around so I can get what satisfies me--tons of pizza.
To the bolded... don't you think that sort of caution is unnecessary (and maybe presumes ignorance) on a site where people are logging and tracking calories? A person who is entering the foods they eat in their diary would know that 2 pieces of Dominos chicken, spinach and roasted red pepper pizza (my latest go to on pizza night) is 560 calories and 4 pieces of Parmesan bites are 150 which leaves me 190 calories to keep this meal under 800 which is what I aim for for splurge dinners. So another piece of pizza, or a salad, or some dessert or a glass of wine.
Caveating every post with information that posters should already know or be able to figure out themselves, seems redundant and insulting to me. I feel the same way about you the disclaimer, , even though I and many others do explicitly state, "but nutrition is also important"when someone asks if calories are all that matter for weight loss. My 5 year old knows that nutrition is important. Do I really have to add that to every post for grown adults so that my comments are not misinterpreted by people like the OP?
YES...you should add this to every post. Anyone new to this forum would believe... based on the abundance of ridiculous comments that you can just eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your calorie goals. This is irresponsible and I've actually taken the liberty to look at people's diary's who advocate this and alot of them are actually eating healthy! So why advocate to others that you can eat whatever you want instead of promoting a healthy, balanced lifestyle with moderated indulgences. The fact that you have an issue with someone throwing nutrition in the mix is absolutely ridiculous. A reminder about nutrition is definitely needed on a forum such as this one.
Again, I have to ask, have you read through the entire thread, because this was discussed repeatedly, whether it is necessary to explicitly state nutrition is important and why people presume that an individual means that they want to eat nothing but junk food when they ask if they can eat junk food and still lose weight, or that a person who responds "yes, you can eat anything you like as long as you are in a calorie deficit for weight loss" actually is implying that someone should eat nothing but junk food. Yet you are saying that this advice is irresponsible?
I am also curious, you seem surprised that when you peeked at people's diaries, who give the advice, "eat anything you want in a calorie deficit" that they are eating an overall healthy diet. THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG! People who advocate for eating all foods in moderation are eating mostly a nutrient dense, balanced diet, with treats mixed in as they can fit them. This is like every time we've had a "Sugar is Evil" thread and people say that there is nothing wrong with sugar in the context of an overall balanced diet, and people translate that to mean that those people eat nothing but pixie sticks and donuts all day long. But really, you were surprised to see that most people were 'actually eating healthy'!?
Lastly, I have absolutely NO issue with people commenting that nutrition is important and I do so myself quite frequently. It is important! No one thinks otherwise! What I am saying is that it is not necessary to add that footnote to EVERY SINGLE POST on these boards.20 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Really? I have success rates with ALL my clients and I don't preach eating "clean" at all. In fact, I do tell them to eat whatever they like AS LONG AS they don't exceed the calorie intake set for them. Do you know why people fail at diets? Because they usually are restricted from eating things they actually like. If one LEARNS how to control how much of something like eat, then the chances are higher that they will adhere to that habitual behavior.People don't want to eat 1 slice of pizza, or a 1/4 of a plate of Loco Rice, or 7 chili cheese fries. They want to have a meal. If you eat the "right amount" of junk food to stay within your calorie limits, you're going to be starving to death and it's going to cause you to eat more. Eating food that doesn't taste as good as what you want is much better than satisfying a craving and then derailing later because you were so hungry you caved. There are a few people around here who have done their time, lost their weight, and they are in good shape. These people give advice from the "look at me, I lost a ton of weight so I know what I'm doing" stand point, but seem to have forgotten what it was like to ACTUALLY live as a fat person. So when someone tells you you can have junk food, don't listen to them, not because they are lying to you - they aren't, it's true - but because the advice isn't helpful in practice.
Sorry if you can't do it, but that's an issue you deal with that you have to fix. Unless you have some actual peer reviewed clinical study that one CAN'T be taught moderation, you're just opining what you believe.
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
I scratch my head when you say eat what you want.....and then show what experience you have for 30 years in nutrition.
I'm not a know it all, don't claim anything. Just kinda seemed strange, with all the bad food's out there. All the preservatives and crap they put in food now days. Maybe it's a 2 step process, lose weight by eating your favorite foods at less calories then maybe changing over to clean later on after you lose the weight.
How specifically do preservatives make food "bad"? Isn't that kind of the point of preservatives, to keep food from going bad?
But seriously - eating clean is not a requirement for weight loss, or for overall health. There are plenty of nutrient dense processed foods with preservatives that can be incorporated into the context of a healthy diet. Additionally, eating "junk" food in moderation does not make a person unhealthy. What I think @ninerbuff has described about his approach, particularly with overweight and obese clients, is that simply losing weight, regardless of the types of foods one eats while losing, improves overall health. Then from there, it is possible to become more health and nutrition focused - but again, as has been said COUNTLESS times in this thread - telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food. Presuming that someone plans to eat nothing but junk food, simply because a personal trainer, or someone on the MFP boards tells them it is ok - is a strange assumption to make about someone.
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
I think CIO vs. Cosleeping may give breast v. bottle a run for its money, though.
And IIRC, basic internet etiquette went out the window around the time they let AOL out onto the Information Superhighway, and by the time your average tween had a high-speed connection (and parents who had never been online themselves) netiquette was dead.
Dieting is not just personal. I've got a manifesto floating around in my head about the ways that diet has replaced religion in the modern brain. The decline in percentage of people who belong to an organized religion with membership and rules seems to very much correlate with the rise of Food Movements, and the behavior of "believers" in both is very, very similar. It's not helped by the social message that your weight reflects your actual value as a person (aka, your BMI is an outer reflection of your soul).
5 -
AntoinetteAngus wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Really? I have success rates with ALL my clients and I don't preach eating "clean" at all. In fact, I do tell them to eat whatever they like AS LONG AS they don't exceed the calorie intake set for them. Do you know why people fail at diets? Because they usually are restricted from eating things they actually like. If one LEARNS how to control how much of something like eat, then the chances are higher that they will adhere to that habitual behavior.People don't want to eat 1 slice of pizza, or a 1/4 of a plate of Loco Rice, or 7 chili cheese fries. They want to have a meal. If you eat the "right amount" of junk food to stay within your calorie limits, you're going to be starving to death and it's going to cause you to eat more. Eating food that doesn't taste as good as what you want is much better than satisfying a craving and then derailing later because you were so hungry you caved. There are a few people around here who have done their time, lost their weight, and they are in good shape. These people give advice from the "look at me, I lost a ton of weight so I know what I'm doing" stand point, but seem to have forgotten what it was like to ACTUALLY live as a fat person. So when someone tells you you can have junk food, don't listen to them, not because they are lying to you - they aren't, it's true - but because the advice isn't helpful in practice.
Sorry if you can't do it, but that's an issue you deal with that you have to fix. Unless you have some actual peer reviewed clinical study that one CAN'T be taught moderation, you're just opining what you believe.
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
I scratch my head when you say eat what you want.....and then show what experience you have for 30 years in nutrition.
I'm not a know it all, don't claim anything. Just kinda seemed strange, with all the bad food's out there. All the preservatives and crap they put in food now days. Maybe it's a 2 step process, lose weight by eating your favorite foods at less calories then maybe changing over to clean later on after you lose the weight.
How specifically do preservatives make food "bad"? Isn't that kind of the point of preservatives, to keep food from going bad?
But seriously - eating clean is not a requirement for weight loss, or for overall health. There are plenty of nutrient dense processed foods with preservatives that can be incorporated into the context of a healthy diet. Additionally, eating "junk" food in moderation does not make a person unhealthy. What I think @ninerbuff has described about his approach, particularly with overweight and obese clients, is that simply losing weight, regardless of the types of foods one eats while losing, improves overall health. Then from there, it is possible to become more health and nutrition focused - but again, as has been said COUNTLESS times in this thread - telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food. Presuming that someone plans to eat nothing but junk food, simply because a personal trainer, or someone on the MFP boards tells them it is ok - is a strange assumption to make about someone.
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'
So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?
Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?
And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »You guys just take every single word someone writes literally, to the t. I don't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life not eating things you enjoy. I also don't mean that you can NEVER have things you enjoy, or that are calorie dense. What I do mean, and was obvious in the original post, that is if you aren't just looking for something to complain about, is that dieting under the idea that "you can have whatever, so long as it fits in your calorie count" is not an effective long term solution because MOST people, especially larger people, run out of calories waaaaay before they become satiated. If you are a 135lb woman that's 5'9 which I think was an example somewhere in this thread, and you're only eating at a 500 calorie deficit, no *kitten* you are gonna be full before you run out of calories. You're small, even if you aren't at your "goal" you are going to feel satiated. If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.
I agree and I agreed with your original post as well. I knew exactly where you were coming from. But of course, the one's that have it all figured out (now) or never struggled with it will tear apart your statement....
My Lord. Never struggled? The folks who never struggled are not here. I know they exist, but the old timers giving advice here have all struggled. So now that they've worked through the struggles and figured things out,t hey can't offer insight and advice to those still struggling?
SMH
I'm going to back you up on this one @Tacklewasher. So assume the veterans offering advice have "everything figure out" or "never struggled" is ridiculous. Those people don't exist on forums like this, myself included. I may be new to MFP, but this sure as hell isn't my first trip to this rodeo and it took a few tries before I got my groove. All of my advice is based on my history of trial and error, as well as my results.
We have ALL struggled and for the OP state that "you can eat what you want" is "garbage advice" is also ridiculous. For perspective, on another thread someone suggested that you should only eat Electric Foods because they cure AIDS and diabetes. THAT is garbage advice. There are uncountable versions of "eating what you want" and to assume that automatically means junk food is a little short sighted. I like cake so that's what "eating what you want" means to me. My sister hates cake but loves mushrooms and could chomp on them all day. That's what "eating what you want" means to her. And on and on and on...
The veterans on here are offering solid advice based on results and experience (experience being the important term here). Take it in, do your own research, try a few things, and eventually you'll have your own successes to share.
7 -
snowflake954 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Right here! I would rather have a lot of food than a little bit. If I have some teensy-weensy, tee-niney, pigmy sized pea shaped piece of something magically delicious I will not be satisfied. I save the junk for when I REALLY want it. I may blow my calories that day but man is it ever worth it when I do! Some people really are content with two Oreos or a half-cup of ice cream. I I eat that and it's gonna be on like Donkey-Kong.
I consider this a form of moderation too, though.
One form is eat a serving (or whatever amount regularly fits in your calories) more regularly. For example, I went through a stage where I had about 200 calories for dessert every night. I'd have ice cream or cheese usually, or else a more indulgent dinner.
Another is a rare blow out. There are some things I'm not interested in eating in moderation or are hard to fit -- a Mexican restaurant, Indian restaurant, Ethiopian restaurant, rare multi-course tasting menu at a new place, maybe. So I do them more rarely (at maintenance it doesn't have to be that rarely, as I tend to do a weekend long run and long bike, but depends), but when I do them I don't try to fit a calorie goal or skip the naan and get the tandoori chicken and so on. I eat what I want and without really worrying about it and since it's not something I do weekly regardless of workout it doesn't matter. It's a form of moderation. If I felt like that about ice cream or cake (I really don't, I'd rather just have a sensible amount and not overdo), then I'd follow a similar schedule there. But I wouldn't claim that meant "eat what you want within your calories" didn't work, since that would still be what I was doing.
I love pie, I have it basically on holidays only anymore, because baking it is a bad idea unless I have other people to eat it, and because if I bake it I will want more than a piece. I haven't cut out pie and wouldn't tell anyone else you need to cut out pie. 'Cause that's not so, even though I don't eat much pie anymore.
Moderation comes in many forms. I choose to abstain more often. However the kind of moderation most often referred to around here is the "make it fit on a daily basis" moderation.
It's often referred to because it's worked for the majority. You'll notice that the veteran posters that have been here a long time--have lost the weight and are maintaining using IIFYM. Over the years I've seen alot of people posting that are just spinning their wheels--eliminating one "bad food" after another. They are usually VERY unhappy. We try to explain how it works. Take it or leave it--it's just free advice.
This exactly right here! People act like they can't just leave it if it is not for them. It's free advice and I find it hilarious that people think somehow it's not good enough.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AntoinetteAngus wrote: »
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'
So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?
Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?
And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?
The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.
Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.
(says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).19 -
I just want a triple whopper with bacon and cheese but I saw that video where it sat on a shelf for a long time without spoiling and the fries lasted a year without changing at all.0
-
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Right here! I would rather have a lot of food than a little bit. If I have some teensy-weensy, tee-niney, pigmy sized pea shaped piece of something magically delicious I will not be satisfied. I save the junk for when I REALLY want it. I may blow my calories that day but man is it ever worth it when I do! Some people really are content with two Oreos or a half-cup of ice cream. I I eat that and it's gonna be on like Donkey-Kong.
I consider this a form of moderation too, though.
One form is eat a serving (or whatever amount regularly fits in your calories) more regularly. For example, I went through a stage where I had about 200 calories for dessert every night. I'd have ice cream or cheese usually, or else a more indulgent dinner.
Another is a rare blow out. There are some things I'm not interested in eating in moderation or are hard to fit -- a Mexican restaurant, Indian restaurant, Ethiopian restaurant, rare multi-course tasting menu at a new place, maybe. So I do them more rarely (at maintenance it doesn't have to be that rarely, as I tend to do a weekend long run and long bike, but depends), but when I do them I don't try to fit a calorie goal or skip the naan and get the tandoori chicken and so on. I eat what I want and without really worrying about it and since it's not something I do weekly regardless of workout it doesn't matter. It's a form of moderation. If I felt like that about ice cream or cake (I really don't, I'd rather just have a sensible amount and not overdo), then I'd follow a similar schedule there. But I wouldn't claim that meant "eat what you want within your calories" didn't work, since that would still be what I was doing.
I love pie, I have it basically on holidays only anymore, because baking it is a bad idea unless I have other people to eat it, and because if I bake it I will want more than a piece. I haven't cut out pie and wouldn't tell anyone else you need to cut out pie. 'Cause that's not so, even though I don't eat much pie anymore.
Moderation comes in many forms. I choose to abstain more often. However the kind of moderation most often referred to around here is the "make it fit on a daily basis" moderation.
Then why do so many posts advocating for moderation say "sure, you can have X just maybe not every day?"5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AntoinetteAngus wrote: »
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'
So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?
Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?
And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?
The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.
Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.
(says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).
Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).
Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.4 -
Houses are not natural. I sleep naked in the woods because I don't want cancer.23
-
fitoverfortymom wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick comment for @dfwesq Like you, I've moderated board elsewhere. But there is a different "feel" here when it comes to new posters. Anywhere else I've posted, people who come to a board lurk first to get a feel for what the board is like, and that simply doesn't happen here. I've no idea why or maybe the boards I participate in are different and this is the norm.
Yes, this is one thing that has surprised me too. I lurked first and read some of the stickies, and I didn't start a thread for ages and ages. Because that was my pattern. I also always searched for threads on a topic of interest before posting, although I know we are not supposed to suggest that that would be better forum behavior.
I think it's kind of odd that people don't here, but I am sure we are all biased by where we are most familiar with.
I am also used to forums where debate is common (sometimes polite, sometimes less so, depending on the forum, although I like polite better). Here lots of people seem to take disagreement as, well, mean, which I find puzzling. My main other forum was a book one, but I've also played around or had a lengthier relationship in forums that discussed politics, law, religion, and music -- all topics that can be contentious (and indeed I recall a knock-down blow-out about Great Gatsby back in the day and a long debate about postmodern lit (mostly what it is and does it suck or not), so the internet can be weird).
I get the sense that the newbie posters on MFP are more likely to be familiar with areas of the internet I am not (YouTube followers, instagram, of course FB), and less so some of the areas I find most interesting (and some maybe aren't particularly into forums or different forum cultures -- this one definitely is moderated much more than the others I've been part of, even though they were quite friendly overall, so nothing bad came of light moderation and self-moderation).
I admit that all of these impressions may be related to the fact that I am old (I remember usenet), and I never did fitness internet pre MFP.
I have to agree with this. I too lurked for a long time before posting anything. I read stickies in any forum I visit before I do anything else. It always puzzled me how people can post questions that a few seconds on Google can answer as well as not read anything before posting.
I was also a member of a certain popular baby board and if you want to see mean drop a cloth diapering is the only way thread and watch the explosion. :laugh:
Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
Cloth vs. disposable and breast vs. bottle, oh memories! Don't forget c-sections, VBACs, and the holiness of unmedicated childbirth! I'm so *kitten* happy my kids are older now and don't give a crap about how they were birthed, diapered, or fed. Age and experience has given me some perspective I didn't have as a new mom.
I wonder if all those natural childbirth moms ever received their medal in the mail.
I'm still waiting for mine, and the kid's almost 13.
ETA: To be fair, he came so quick I wasn't given an option.2 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »fitoverfortymom wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick comment for @dfwesq Like you, I've moderated board elsewhere. But there is a different "feel" here when it comes to new posters. Anywhere else I've posted, people who come to a board lurk first to get a feel for what the board is like, and that simply doesn't happen here. I've no idea why or maybe the boards I participate in are different and this is the norm.
Yes, this is one thing that has surprised me too. I lurked first and read some of the stickies, and I didn't start a thread for ages and ages. Because that was my pattern. I also always searched for threads on a topic of interest before posting, although I know we are not supposed to suggest that that would be better forum behavior.
I think it's kind of odd that people don't here, but I am sure we are all biased by where we are most familiar with.
I am also used to forums where debate is common (sometimes polite, sometimes less so, depending on the forum, although I like polite better). Here lots of people seem to take disagreement as, well, mean, which I find puzzling. My main other forum was a book one, but I've also played around or had a lengthier relationship in forums that discussed politics, law, religion, and music -- all topics that can be contentious (and indeed I recall a knock-down blow-out about Great Gatsby back in the day and a long debate about postmodern lit (mostly what it is and does it suck or not), so the internet can be weird).
I get the sense that the newbie posters on MFP are more likely to be familiar with areas of the internet I am not (YouTube followers, instagram, of course FB), and less so some of the areas I find most interesting (and some maybe aren't particularly into forums or different forum cultures -- this one definitely is moderated much more than the others I've been part of, even though they were quite friendly overall, so nothing bad came of light moderation and self-moderation).
I admit that all of these impressions may be related to the fact that I am old (I remember usenet), and I never did fitness internet pre MFP.
I have to agree with this. I too lurked for a long time before posting anything. I read stickies in any forum I visit before I do anything else. It always puzzled me how people can post questions that a few seconds on Google can answer as well as not read anything before posting.
I was also a member of a certain popular baby board and if you want to see mean drop a cloth diapering is the only way thread and watch the explosion. :laugh:
Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
Cloth vs. disposable and breast vs. bottle, oh memories! Don't forget c-sections, VBACs, and the holiness of unmedicated childbirth! I'm so *kitten* happy my kids are older now and don't give a crap about how they were birthed, diapered, or fed. Age and experience has given me some perspective I didn't have as a new mom.
I wonder if all those natural childbirth moms ever received their medal in the mail.
I'm still waiting for mine, and the kid's almost 13.
ETA: To be fair, he came so quick I wasn't given an option.
It's going to come in the form of teenage sass. :laugh:3 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »fitoverfortymom wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick comment for @dfwesq Like you, I've moderated board elsewhere. But there is a different "feel" here when it comes to new posters. Anywhere else I've posted, people who come to a board lurk first to get a feel for what the board is like, and that simply doesn't happen here. I've no idea why or maybe the boards I participate in are different and this is the norm.
Yes, this is one thing that has surprised me too. I lurked first and read some of the stickies, and I didn't start a thread for ages and ages. Because that was my pattern. I also always searched for threads on a topic of interest before posting, although I know we are not supposed to suggest that that would be better forum behavior.
I think it's kind of odd that people don't here, but I am sure we are all biased by where we are most familiar with.
I am also used to forums where debate is common (sometimes polite, sometimes less so, depending on the forum, although I like polite better). Here lots of people seem to take disagreement as, well, mean, which I find puzzling. My main other forum was a book one, but I've also played around or had a lengthier relationship in forums that discussed politics, law, religion, and music -- all topics that can be contentious (and indeed I recall a knock-down blow-out about Great Gatsby back in the day and a long debate about postmodern lit (mostly what it is and does it suck or not), so the internet can be weird).
I get the sense that the newbie posters on MFP are more likely to be familiar with areas of the internet I am not (YouTube followers, instagram, of course FB), and less so some of the areas I find most interesting (and some maybe aren't particularly into forums or different forum cultures -- this one definitely is moderated much more than the others I've been part of, even though they were quite friendly overall, so nothing bad came of light moderation and self-moderation).
I admit that all of these impressions may be related to the fact that I am old (I remember usenet), and I never did fitness internet pre MFP.
I have to agree with this. I too lurked for a long time before posting anything. I read stickies in any forum I visit before I do anything else. It always puzzled me how people can post questions that a few seconds on Google can answer as well as not read anything before posting.
I was also a member of a certain popular baby board and if you want to see mean drop a cloth diapering is the only way thread and watch the explosion. :laugh:
Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
Cloth vs. disposable and breast vs. bottle, oh memories! Don't forget c-sections, VBACs, and the holiness of unmedicated childbirth! I'm so *kitten* happy my kids are older now and don't give a crap about how they were birthed, diapered, or fed. Age and experience has given me some perspective I didn't have as a new mom.
I wonder if all those natural childbirth moms ever received their medal in the mail.
I'm still waiting for mine, and the kid's almost 13.
ETA: To be fair, he came so quick I wasn't given an option.
It's going to come in the form of teenage sass. :laugh:
I'm sure a medal for not killing them during the teenage years is much more impressive/needed than one for childbirth.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AntoinetteAngus wrote: »
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'
So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?
Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?
And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?
The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.
Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.
(says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).
Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).
Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.
what? Wow.0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »fitoverfortymom wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quick comment for @dfwesq Like you, I've moderated board elsewhere. But there is a different "feel" here when it comes to new posters. Anywhere else I've posted, people who come to a board lurk first to get a feel for what the board is like, and that simply doesn't happen here. I've no idea why or maybe the boards I participate in are different and this is the norm.
Yes, this is one thing that has surprised me too. I lurked first and read some of the stickies, and I didn't start a thread for ages and ages. Because that was my pattern. I also always searched for threads on a topic of interest before posting, although I know we are not supposed to suggest that that would be better forum behavior.
I think it's kind of odd that people don't here, but I am sure we are all biased by where we are most familiar with.
I am also used to forums where debate is common (sometimes polite, sometimes less so, depending on the forum, although I like polite better). Here lots of people seem to take disagreement as, well, mean, which I find puzzling. My main other forum was a book one, but I've also played around or had a lengthier relationship in forums that discussed politics, law, religion, and music -- all topics that can be contentious (and indeed I recall a knock-down blow-out about Great Gatsby back in the day and a long debate about postmodern lit (mostly what it is and does it suck or not), so the internet can be weird).
I get the sense that the newbie posters on MFP are more likely to be familiar with areas of the internet I am not (YouTube followers, instagram, of course FB), and less so some of the areas I find most interesting (and some maybe aren't particularly into forums or different forum cultures -- this one definitely is moderated much more than the others I've been part of, even though they were quite friendly overall, so nothing bad came of light moderation and self-moderation).
I admit that all of these impressions may be related to the fact that I am old (I remember usenet), and I never did fitness internet pre MFP.
I have to agree with this. I too lurked for a long time before posting anything. I read stickies in any forum I visit before I do anything else. It always puzzled me how people can post questions that a few seconds on Google can answer as well as not read anything before posting.
I was also a member of a certain popular baby board and if you want to see mean drop a cloth diapering is the only way thread and watch the explosion. :laugh:
Breastfeeding vs. Bottle is way worse than cloth diapering
I also lurked and read everything before I started posting. I thought that was basic internet etiquette.
One of the things regarding the push back veterans see from newbies I think has to do with the psychology of dieters. How to phrase this... dieting is personal. A lot of people are mired in a set of complex feelings regarding their weight and losing that weight and bring all of that with them when they come to these forums.
I'm not saying this justifies how they act, mind you. I think, in an ideal world, people should accept responsibility for their actions and be civil to each other and give other people credit for treating them with good intent. Saying that, I know that a lot of people on certain parts of their path to weight loss aren't really at a place where they're truly accepting full responsibility for their part in being overweight in the first place, and are defensive and come here in that sort of vulnerable fragility that being on the defense places you.
It puts anyone giving them advice in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
Cloth vs. disposable and breast vs. bottle, oh memories! Don't forget c-sections, VBACs, and the holiness of unmedicated childbirth! I'm so *kitten* happy my kids are older now and don't give a crap about how they were birthed, diapered, or fed. Age and experience has given me some perspective I didn't have as a new mom.
I wonder if all those natural childbirth moms ever received their medal in the mail.
I'm still waiting for mine, and the kid's almost 13.
ETA: To be fair, he came so quick I wasn't given an option.
That's the reason I had natural too. By the time I got to the hospital it was too late for anything but pushing. Every single time. ::grumble::2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Houses are not natural. I sleep naked in the woods because I don't want cancer.
How do you keep your Oreos from getting stale, out there in the woods, @Carlos_421?5 -
Am I the only one who thinks of this when the title of this thread pops up in their newsfeed?
Just me then...6 -
SpotLighttt wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AntoinetteAngus wrote: »
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'
So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?
Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?
And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?
The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.
Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.
(says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).
Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).
Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.
what? Wow.
I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.
Food should spoil when it spoils, right?4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SpotLighttt wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AntoinetteAngus wrote: »
Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.
So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'
So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?
Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?
And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?
The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.
Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.
(says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).
Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).
Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.
what? Wow.
I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.
Food should spoil when it spoils, right?
To be fair food will dry or freeze without human intervention under the right conditions.1 -
One DOESN'T have to eat clean to sustain/maintain weight once the reach goal though. I mentioned it before, but look at countries (especially in Asia) that don't have obesity issues. They don't adhere to a "clean" eating regimen. There's alot of processed foods, high carb and sodium bombs going on.
Really? I have success rates with ALL my clients and I don't preach eating "clean" at all. In fact, I do tell them to eat whatever they like AS LONG AS they don't exceed the calorie intake set for them. Do you know why people fail at diets? Because they usually are restricted from eating things they actually like. If one LEARNS how to control how much of something like eat, then the chances are higher that they will adhere to that habitual behavior.People don't want to eat 1 slice of pizza, or a 1/4 of a plate of Loco Rice, or 7 chili cheese fries. They want to have a meal. If you eat the "right amount" of junk food to stay within your calorie limits, you're going to be starving to death and it's going to cause you to eat more. Eating food that doesn't taste as good as what you want is much better than satisfying a craving and then derailing later because you were so hungry you caved. There are a few people around here who have done their time, lost their weight, and they are in good shape. These people give advice from the "look at me, I lost a ton of weight so I know what I'm doing" stand point, but seem to have forgotten what it was like to ACTUALLY live as a fat person. So when someone tells you you can have junk food, don't listen to them, not because they are lying to you - they aren't, it's true - but because the advice isn't helpful in practice.
Sorry if you can't do it, but that's an issue you deal with that you have to fix. Unless you have some actual peer reviewed clinical study that one CAN'T be taught moderation, you're just opining what you believe.
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
I scratch my head when you say eat what you want.....and then show what experience you have for 30 years in nutrition.
I'm not a know it all, don't claim anything. Just kinda seemed strange, with all the bad food's out there. All the preservatives and crap they put in food now days. Maybe it's a 2 step process, lose weight by eating your favorite foods at less calories then maybe changing over to clean later on after you lose the weight.
I don't adhere to the fitness/diet industry's mantra of "clean eating" and do just fine. It's not a NEEDED ingredient to successful get in good shape and stay that way.
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
This is actually false. They actually eat very clean - http://www.livestrong.com/article/316334-asian-diet-to-lose-weight0 -
I just want a triple whopper with bacon and cheese but I saw that video where it sat on a shelf for a long time without spoiling and the fries lasted a year without changing at all.
You do understand that the issue here is a lack of moisture in the product. They dry out before the mold can start to grow. And then there is nothing for the mold to grow on. Has zero to do with them being healthy or not.9 -
I agree. Even health/nutrition researchers are changing the definition of healthy.
Eggs are bad. Eggs are good.
Eat high carb/low protein. Eat high protein/low carb.
Coffee is bad. Coffee is good.
Eat low fat. Eat high fat.
Don't eat saturated fat/cholesterol. Saturated fat/cholesterol may not be bad for you.
Don't eat white carbs, gluten. Eat only clean foods (This one personally drives me nuts).
One of the latest is don't eat food with chemicals in it. Good luck with that.
Love this post.
I pretty much lurk here and enjoy watching the "food war" threads.
Can anyone explain a few things to me?
How can there be such a thing as junk food. What does that mean? I always thought food was food. Never once occurred to me that some of it was junk.
I did know that some stuff that looked like food was poison to humans. But we were taught early on what wild foods were safe to eat and what not to touch.
Is junk food the homemade root beer that mama used to make or the ice cream that daddy spent lots of time cranking? Is it the fast food hamburger vs the homemade one?
Another thing that I find interesting is how highly organic foods are rated. All our produce on the farm was organic. We could not afford to buy pesticides nor fertilizer. So we aged cow s**t until it cooled off enough to be spread on the garden/berries, and ate around the worms in the fruits and veggies.
I am not a fan of produce that is shipped in from far away, not because I think it is less nutritious, but because I believe that vine/tree etc ripened tastes better.
Back to lurker status. Thanks
7 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Houses are not natural. I sleep naked in the woods because I don't want cancer.
How do you keep your Oreos from getting stale, out there in the woods, @Carlos_421?
You imply that they remain uneaten long enough to get stale in the first place. That's silly.12 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Houses are not natural. I sleep naked in the woods because I don't want cancer.
How do you keep your Oreos from getting stale, out there in the woods, @Carlos_421?
You imply that they remain uneaten long enough to get stale in the first place. That's silly.
You can have my Oreo's when you pr....... Wait. I don't like Oreos.3 -
I'm happy now that I can have my whopper with bacon.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions