Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
I see what you're getting at and agree - it is strange to see on a fitness site. It's also strangely wonderful. The key element lacking in the majority of weight management programs in long term discipline. MFP/IIFYM differ in that the stress in not upon specific foods, but portion size to accommodate personal dietary budgets.
I suspect the rationale behind the booing is that this mindset to cut sugar/fat is not sustainable long term and to get beyond the notion that there is such a thing as good/bad foods. Note that this is concerning the majority population with a higher bodyfat percentage.
Exactly, many respected fitness/nutrition experts have written on the importance of compliance and the downside of over restriction. Steve Troutman writes about it regularly.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
I see what you're getting at and agree - it is strange to see on a fitness site. It's also strangely wonderful. The key element lacking in the majority of weight management programs in long term discipline. MFP/IIFYM differ in that the stress in not upon specific foods, but portion size to accommodate personal dietary budgets.
I suspect the rationale behind the booing is that this mindset to cut sugar/fat is not sustainable long term and to get beyond the notion that there is such a thing as good/bad foods. Note that this is concerning the majority population with a higher bodyfat percentage.
Exactly, many respected fitness/nutrition experts have written on the importance of compliance and the downside of over restriction. Steve Troutman writes about it regularly.
From my personal experience, I know, after 40 years of dieting experience, that the mindset of all-out restriction isn't in any way a sustainable compliance strategy.
I came into this weight loss venture this time with every intention of learning everything I could so this would be a life long successful endeavor, and learning from my past mistakes as well as taking on board new information has been part of my evolving strategy moving forward.
Applauding the inclusion of pizza and cookies in someone's diet doesn't mean endorsing a diet that's full of nothing but pizza and cookies. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think most of us who boo the idea of restriction know that it's not sustainable in the long run because it always ends up backfiring.
I remember one poster on here who famously swore up down right and left that she never ate sugar. Except when she did. And then said that since she almost never ate it that she just said she never ate it. Well okay. She somewhat restricted her intake but allowed herself to indulge on special occasions. That's a balance that's sustainable, and that's something that I could get behind in restriction threads.
I see a poster on here who's an advocate of keto who talks about having had cheats of desserts here and there of birthday cake or ice cream. Okay... most of the time, you're restrictive, but make exceptions to have indulgences but hardly ever talk about it.
I don't get these games. You're really no different than I am. I talk moderation and maybe treat myself to a candy bar once a month or two. Eh, I have Hershey's syrup on my protein ice cream if I'm eating it. That's my sugar intake.
But I have a different outlook on the whole restriction thing because I feel differently about how I look at food.
I like to convey that to posters looking to restrict their own intake, not to discourage them, but to encourage them not to play games with themselves.
Food is food. It's okay to find sustainable balance instead of having an all or nothing mentality.20 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Someone who is fitting in some wine or ice cream and also hitting their macro and calorie goals is already going to be consuming a reasonable amount of sugar or fat though. It's not an either/or type of thing.
I think many of us come from a background where we're convinced that we have to completely eliminate certain foods from our lives in order to lose weight. So when we "cheer" people for realizing that they can sometimes have ice cream or wine as part of achieving/maintaining a healthy weight, we're really cheering on the fact that someone has managed to overcome that limiting attitude.
If someone doesn't want ice cream or wine, there is no reason they should have to consume them. But for me, it was incredibly freeing to realize that any food could fit into my life and when other people have the same realization, I am happy for them too.17 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
To the extent that this "praise for treats" phenomenon is happening, part of the reason may be that some (lots?) of us enjoy treats, yet have to put energy, thought, and work into getting a good balance of nutrition within our calorie goals.
When we make that calorie/nutrition thing work right, and still have room for treats, it feels like leveling up in a challenging game. So when we see others do it, we're like "yay, you! you won treats!!!".
But watching other people restrict stuff just doesn't have that same kick. It's more like seeing other people succeed in making their bed and brushing their teeth every single day, or something. It's good, but kinda boring.
16 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
To the extent that this "praise for treats" phenomenon is happening, part of the reason may be that some (lots?) of us enjoy treats, yet have to put energy, thought, and work into getting a good balance of nutrition within our calorie goals.
When we make that calorie/nutrition thing work right, and still have room for treats, it feels like leveling up in a challenging game. So when we see others do it, we're like "yay, you! you won treats!!!".
But watching other people restrict stuff just doesn't have that same kick. It's more like seeing other people succeed in making their bed and brushing their teeth every single day, or something. It's good, but kinda boring.
Yes, perfectly put!
3 -
shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning.
What kind of protein?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I find it annoying that people who eat as many or more processed foods as me, and often a less vegetable focused diet claim some kind of extra clean diet based on an assertion that they never eat processed foods when of course they do.
I also find the idea that if you don't agree that processed foods are inherently bad (I find plain greek yogurt and smoked salmon and tempeh helpful in meeting my protein needs), that you have a poor diet and eat lots of Cheetos and sugary sodas (neither of which are foods I ever consume, and I didn't consume them when I was overweight either).
And I think your post is a strawman, as I think most of us here agree that diets can be better or worse and that what you eat matters for nutrition (as I am pretty sure I posted about just a few pages back).
I note that you just ignored that, since I guess it's easier to pretend like the rest of us don't care about nutrition.16 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I find it annoying that people who eat as many or more processed foods as me, and often a less vegetable focused diet claim some kind of extra clean diet based on an assertion that they never eat processed foods when of course they do.
I also find the idea that if you don't agree that processed foods are inherently bad (I find plain greek yogurt and smoked salmon and tempeh helpful in meeting my protein needs), that you have a poor diet and eat lots of Cheetos and sugary sodas (neither of which are foods I ever consume, and I didn't consume them when I was overweight either).
And I think your post is a strawman, as I think most of us here agree that diets can be better or worse and that what you eat matters for nutrition (as I am pretty sure I posted about just a few pages back).
I note that you just ignored that, since I guess it's easier to pretend like the rest of us don't care about nutrition.
Nope, it's just my unpopular opinion.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.10 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
You keep forgetting that MFP users aren't the general American public.
You act as if everyone on here is eating a calorie controlled version of SAD.
Why?9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
I think the point people are trying to make in this discussion is that IF you can ALSO get extra treats along with nutrients from doing things like getting enough fruits/veggies, appropriate protein, etc., that's where the celebration comes in. We all know how hard it is to fit everything in, so it's worth noting when someone manages to do that successfully. It's not about prioritizing one (RDA of vegetables) over the other (ice cream and alcohol). They're both important for sustained success, IMO.
Based on my personal experience, it was a revelation to me that I didn't have to beat myself up if I had a piece of cake. I could have the cake on occasion AND meet all of my other nutritional goals. It was a very freeing realization and I truly believe that it's helped me drop 40 pounds in 6 months.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
Something can be varied and still exclude certain things. Varied does not necessarily mean all inclusive, it just means that it incorporates a number of different types or elements. I'm fairly certain your diet probably has conditions as well, or would you literally eat anything?
I actually mean the GMO/Processed as most of the food we consume has a GMO ingredient in it or is processed in some way...
This would depend on who "we" is. My diet contains very few GMO as I grow a lot of my own and buy plants/seeds from growers who provide non-GMO. Any I don't believe for one second that anyone really thinks people mean whole foods that have been "processed" by harvesting, shipping, packaging. That's just nonsense for arguments sake.
As I always say, when someone asks if we eliminate processed foods or what we think about processed foods, I think about the kinds of foods I eat, and the processed foods (and I think they are obviously processed) I eat are things like cheese, cottage cheese, greek yogurt (I only eat plain), occasional protein powder, seitan, canned foods (mostly tomatoes and beans), dried pasta, and various restaurant meals or pre-made meals (I don't do frozen meals, but I do something analogous as I occasionally buy food at SnapKitchen if I forget to pack lunch).
So if someone proclaims that they are trying to avoid processed foods, I think of these, and either think they are being weirdly dishonest, have a strange definition of processed (and are acting like it's some big deal to eat like I've always eaten), and/or -- and this is most significant -- are asserting that a diet without processed foods is inherently better than one with. Indeed, that's usually the point, as claims are made like "it's my opinion that eating processed foods is bad for you!"
For me, that's just not true, because I find the kinds of foods mentioned, sauces like mustard and sriarcha and chile sauces, olive oil and vinegars, so on, to be actually helpful in having a satisfying and nutritious diet.
I also don't think that occasionally having some homemade pie (say) or homemade ice cream (which contain processed ingredients) is going to ruin a diet -- that's about context and dose. AND, most significant to the processed food discussion, I don't think homemade ice cream is really better or worse for a healthy diet than Talenti or B&J or whatever, assuming context and dosage are the same.
While I don't eat them, I also think things like frozen meals can be reasonably nutritious and are not all high sodium and may be very helpful for someone in having an overall nutritious diet, not to replace home cooking from whole foods, but as a sometimes thing, and I hate this idea that it's not as good and something that people should feel bad about. I think that makes it harder for people.
Thus, if someone makes a broad claim about ALL processed foods being bad (and claiming they never eat them when they do), I think that they are, in fact, not is worth pointing out.
I also find the idea that we all really know what they mean odd, since I think the idea is they mean fast food (which I never call processed food casually, but, you know, fast food) or frozen meals (which I never think about except in these discussions, but would call convenience foods or premade meals) or sweets (again, I'd call them sweets) or packaged junk food (again, junk food -- I don't think of "processed" as meaning potato chips, for example, and it's a far broader category).
Mostly I suspect most that go on about processed foods being bad haven't really thought through what the term encompasses and are just repeating currently popular buzz words.10 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
Something can be varied and still exclude certain things. Varied does not necessarily mean all inclusive, it just means that it incorporates a number of different types or elements. I'm fairly certain your diet probably has conditions as well, or would you literally eat anything?
I actually mean the GMO/Processed as most of the food we consume has a GMO ingredient in it or is processed in some way...
This would depend on who "we" is. My diet contains very few GMO as I grow a lot of my own and buy plants/seeds from growers who provide non-GMO. Any I don't believe for one second that anyone really thinks people mean whole foods that have been "processed" by harvesting, shipping, packaging. That's just nonsense for arguments sake.
I have seen where it was argued that cutting vegetables and grinding beef was "processing" them - obviously that person wasn't interested in engaging in a rational discussion about processed food. I guess it is the same mindset that inspires the "of course my food is clean, I always wash it" dad jokery...
I don't think of ground beef as processed, but it goes to a processor (and skinless boneless chicken same, plus a much leaner cut than is really going to come from a whole foods approach to it, eating the whole bird -- which is what I actually would aspire to), and there's a recent poster who goes on about frozen veg being bad.
But beyond this, a lot of people assert that the reason to avoid "processed" foods is to be more "natural." I am interested in that argument, because I went through a phase where I was really obsessed with trying to be natural (I thought in part it was a key to being able to eat without worrying about amounts and not gaining weight -- it wasn't). If one is focused on what is natural, pre-cut veg are avoided, but not really the issue the way eating out of season and non locally is. For me the natural extension, after thinking about grinding my own flour (I never did this), eschewing anything packaged from the store, acting as if homemade pasta was inherently healthier than dried and canned tomatoes important to avoid, so on, was to start exploring locavorism, because there's really nothing natural about being able to have bananas in Chicago or Alaskan salmon or broccoli all winter long.
Now, I think we should focus on nutrition, not "naturalness," and so would not at all say these things are bad now (unless it was as part of an environmental argument, which I would listen to). But a blanket assertion that "processed" foods are inherently bad also makes no sense. Some of them are not nutritionally dense and could be called junk food, but that's not at all true for all of them.4 -
Really? We're here again? The "all the regulars cheerlead a nutritionally crappy diet because calories" strawman. Some day someone who makes this claim is going to show me an entire thread where no mention is made of fitting treats into a wide and varied nutritionally dense overall diet.
20 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
Well, how would you know this really? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. What is that to you? Personally, I do me and other do them. I'm not looking to control or or be the diet judge of what others are eating.
FTR, I don't agree with your perception about what is discussed 80% of the time. Or maybe I do a little but I'm not out to save the world. I'm running my own race. I see dopey posts every day about stuff. They're everywhere. It's not my job to be the correctness police and fix people. Is it yours?
Also, I see lots and lots of discussion of of what is an appropriate amount of nutrient dense foods. I'd suggest if you don't, you are either not paying close enough attention or need to have more discretion about which threads you wander into.
FTR 2: I get more than the recommended amount of fruits and veggies pretty much every day. I am not the only one. So that pretty much invalidates your "virtually nobody" statement. Either way, what business is it of yours?
Suggestion. You may want to consider dialing back the judgmental thing in regard to other people and focus on being a better you. Just sayin...9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
I agree with the last sentence.
I don't think that people have negative responses to those reducing sugar or fat (or junk food or whatever). I think there's a negative response to the idea that "bad foods" should be avoided or "all sugar" should be avoided or fat is always bad or the like, to the idea that the only right way to diet is to "eat clean" (which often doesn't have a coherent meaning) and that you should feel guilty or like you cheated if you ever eat a cookie.
Also, reasonable explanation if someone says "I thought avocado was good for me, but it's SO high in fat" or the like.
Contrary to what you assert, I think if you asked most of the participants in this thread how they reduced calories, most of us would talk about things like cutting lower nutrient foods or, even if that is not applicable, about the importance of making sure their diet is based on nutrient-dense and satisfying foods, but also including the extras.
You often seem to jump to the conclusion that people are encouraging unlimited drinking of sugary soda or paying no attention to the diet and just eating the (stereotypical) SAD and so on, and since I do not see that, I think that's coming from you.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I find it annoying that people who eat as many or more processed foods as me, and often a less vegetable focused diet claim some kind of extra clean diet based on an assertion that they never eat processed foods when of course they do.
I also find the idea that if you don't agree that processed foods are inherently bad (I find plain greek yogurt and smoked salmon and tempeh helpful in meeting my protein needs), that you have a poor diet and eat lots of Cheetos and sugary sodas (neither of which are foods I ever consume, and I didn't consume them when I was overweight either).
And I think your post is a strawman, as I think most of us here agree that diets can be better or worse and that what you eat matters for nutrition (as I am pretty sure I posted about just a few pages back).
I note that you just ignored that, since I guess it's easier to pretend like the rest of us don't care about nutrition.
Nope, it's just my unpopular opinion.
It's simply not an unpopular opinion that some diets are better than others or that what you eat matters for nutrition. You seem to get off on pretending like the rest of us do not care about nutrition and encourage unhealthy diets, but that's just not true. You seem to be in agreement with the rest of us, sorry.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
You keep forgetting that MFP users aren't the general American public.
You act as if everyone on here is eating a calorie controlled version of SAD.
Why?
Yes, this is what I keep wondering.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
Well, how would you know this really? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. What is that to you? Personally, I do me and other do them. I'm not looking to control or or be the diet judge of what others are eating.
FTR, I don't agree with your perception about what is discussed 80% of the time. Or maybe I do a little but I'm not out to save the world. I'm running my own race. I see dopey posts every day about stuff. They're everywhere. It's not my job to be the correctness police and fix people. Is it yours?
Also, I see lots and lots of discussion of of what is an appropriate amount of nutrient dense foods. I'd suggest if you don't, you are either not paying close enough attention or need to have more discretion about which threads you wander into.
FTR 2: I get more than the recommended amount of fruits and veggies pretty much every day. I am not the only one. So that pretty much invalidates your "virtually nobody" statement. Either way, what business is it of yours?
Suggestion. You may want to consider dialing back the judgmental thing in regard to other people and focus on being a better you. Just sayin...
There's actually quite a few of us here who eat larger amounts of veg/fruit-more than the current recommendations. And then there's also quite a few here who are working on upping their produce consumption-it's a pretty popular thread topic. A bit surprised at pp's statement, since it's so obviously not accurate, if one spends any amount of time on the forums.4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
Wow, almost missed this, until mmapags quoted it.
This is not true. Do far too few Americans? Obviously yes (although it varies by all sorts of factors, people I know at least talk about eating vegetables which is probably because it's a marker for being responsible in the particular subgroups I live in). But onto MFP, maybe check out one of the current fruit and veg threads here or one of the many, many challenges, which often encourage vegetable consumption. Personally, I get well over the currently recommended US serving amounts (I like the recent UK push for a higher amount), but rather than counting servings I prefer to structure meals around protein and vegetables. Why? This is how we ate when I was growing up and what I consider a normal healthy way to eat AND because in reading about nutrition I increasingly think it's important. Plus I love vegetables and they are low cal.
Do I hide that from people on MFP? No, and I find a LOT of people here agree with me, and many of my MFP friends have similar approaches to food (not all, and I don't usually stalk diaries and nag people about how to eat because they are adults and will find what works for them and often people change how they eat over time anyway -- OliveGirl is an example of this on MFP, as well as a successful maintainer).
When eating a nutritious diet comes up, or questions about how to eat healthfully, or what foods do I find satiating or things like that, I mention vegetables. If someone says they cannot eat them, I encourage them to keep trying and make suggestions (I don't do more than that because if someone is picky, not my business, they know they should eat vegetables).
This idea that no one cares about eating a healthy diet on MFP or encourages it is just false.
One does not have to assert that processed foods are bad (hypocritical IMO if one thinks that some of them are, in fact, fine or good and consumes them) to think that eating a nutrient-dense diet with lots of vegetables is important, and to go back to the post that started this, suggesting that eating processed food means one's diet is based on Cheetos and sugary soda is ridiculous.5 -
For the record, I *definitely* get more than the recommended amounts of fruits & veggies in a day.
I also get ice cream if I want it.
14 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »For the record, I *definitely* get more than the recommended amounts of fruits & veggies in a day.
I also get ice cream if I want it.
Yup. I just counted: I'm at 870g+ of fruit and veg so far today, which is not remotely unusual.
My standard advice on many threads is not to let treats, favored foods or favored macros drive out balanced nutrition, which to me is 0.6-0.8g protein per pound of goal weight, 0.35-0.45g fat (much of it from nuts, olive oil, avocados, etc.) per pound of goal weight, and a bare minimum of 5 fruit/veg servings daily (with a note that more is better, and that I usually eat 10+).
If I had the proverbial nickel for every time I've typed this in the forums, I could pay for the rest of the summer for the delicious locally-made, whole-fruit, minimal honey/maple syrup added, usually 50-90 calorie ice pop I buy 2 or 3 times a week when I go to the farmers markets. 'Cos that's my kind of junk food.
Favorite so far this year: Strawberry balsamic (though blueberry lemonade and cucumber-lemon-mint were also darned good).
That "10 servings of fruit/veg" is an unpopular opinion on some threads, gotta admit.
Edit: remove dup quote3 -
*currently munching on 450g of veg as part of lunch whilst reading this*6
-
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Exactly. These people who are mfp "vets" really seem to attack those who put down processed foods. Over and over again.
This is why I stand by my first unpopular opinion pages ago...this is NOT a health and fitness site. It's a weight loss site.19 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
Wow, almost missed this, until mmapags quoted it.
This is not true. Do far too few Americans? Obviously yes (although it varies by all sorts of factors, people I know at least talk about eating vegetables which is probably because it's a marker for being responsible in the particular subgroups I live in). But onto MFP, maybe check out one of the current fruit and veg threads here or one of the many, many challenges, which often encourage vegetable consumption. Personally, I get well over the currently recommended US serving amounts (I like the recent UK push for a higher amount), but rather than counting servings I prefer to structure meals around protein and vegetables. Why? This is how we ate when I was growing up and what I consider a normal healthy way to eat AND because in reading about nutrition I increasingly think it's important. Plus I love vegetables and they are low cal.
Do I hide that from people on MFP? No, and I find a LOT of people here agree with me, and many of my MFP friends have similar approaches to food (not all, and I don't usually stalk diaries and nag people about how to eat because they are adults and will find what works for them and often people change how they eat over time anyway -- OliveGirl is an example of this on MFP, as well as a successful maintainer).
When eating a nutritious diet comes up, or questions about how to eat healthfully, or what foods do I find satiating or things like that, I mention vegetables. If someone says they cannot eat them, I encourage them to keep trying and make suggestions (I don't do more than that because if someone is picky, not my business, they know they should eat vegetables).
This idea that no one cares about eating a healthy diet on MFP or encourages it is just false.
One does not have to assert that processed foods are bad (hypocritical IMO if one thinks that some of them are, in fact, fine or good and consumes them) to think that eating a nutrient-dense diet with lots of vegetables is important, and to go back to the post that started this, suggesting that eating processed food means one's diet is based on Cheetos and sugary soda is ridiculous.
Yep, I've been all over the place in the past 5ish years, and I'm sure I'll experiment with a few more things all said and done, though a modified DASH protocol has really clicked with me so maybe I'm finally settling down lol 2 -
lol, Olive. Someone is going to make you define "modified" and then they'll tell you you're doing it wrong.
5 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Exactly. These people who are mfp "vets" really seem to attack those who put down processed foods. Over and over again.
This is why I stand by my first unpopular opinion pages ago...this is NOT a health and fitness site. It's a weight loss site.
Yet even the most cursory perusal of the forums clearly shows that there are a staggering number of healthy, fit, athletic members on MFP.17 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.
As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.
My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.
I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.
You might be looking at the wrong threads. Many if not most long time members do get the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies (for perspective, I average 50-80 grams of fiber a day). There is no trick to it. Are you unconsciously skimming over the replies where bulking meals with vegetables is recommended because they're not as memorable as snack replies? Have you seen the "volume eaters" thread? Do you think adults need to be told what they already know and has been drilled into them since childhood? Most people know how to eat vegetables. Whether or not they do that's a different story. Eating a carrot is straightforward, eating a higher calorie snack is not. The skill of moderating high calorie items is valuable and not everybody understands how it's done, the skill of "eat your veggies" is seldom an issue when it comes to handling calories.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions