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.
Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.
Replies
-
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
*Pat pat*8 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
Despite this being a zombie thread - you do understand @peckchris3267 was being sarcastic right?0 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
13 -
xhunter561 wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
i have heard of raw beef liver, heart, kidney, as well as raw eggs but i don't think people could get clean raw chicken that easy for just weight loss. but for the most part your not guaranteed anything with any diet even weight loss, and eating only raw chicken is a little too restrictive.
Despite this being a zombie thread - you do understand @peckchris3267 was being sarcastic right?
I wasn't sure if @xhunter561 was being sarcastic or not?? Ya just never know :huh:0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.
I think (and I hesitate to put words in @AnnPT77 's mouth here) that your statement was misinterpreted (as I did on first pass) to mean that each human metabolises them differently, not that each macro is metabolised differently in humans.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.
None of which changes the fact that a calorie is a calorie.
If you’re allergic to peanuts and I’m not, and we both eat 100 grams of peanuts, we’ll have very different results. That doesn’t change anything about the fact that we both just ate 100 grams of peanuts.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ha. CICO worked for me. I lost over 70# without paying attention to micros/macros. BUT. I do think protein is great for building muscle and carbs are great for feeding the beast.
That being said, I also believe a calorie is a calorie.3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.
All humans metabolize carbs, protein, and fat using completely different chemical processes. I'm just forced to be more aware of it than you are.
"Completely"? LOL.
Some of us have medical conditions, and those make a difference. (Each condition makes a different difference.) Who has said otherwise?
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but regardless of medical condition, the process by which the human body breaks down carbs is a different process from the way it breaks down fats which is a different process from the way it breaks down proteins. This is true for all people, not just people with diabetes - but since people with diabetes have an illness which affects the way in which the body breaks down carbs, the difference is more obvious.
I think (and I hesitate to put words in @AnnPT77 's mouth here) that your statement was misinterpreted (as I did on first pass) to mean that each human metabolises them differently, not that each macro is metabolised differently in humans.
Yup, you got it. @rheddmobile's meaning was correct; I misinterpreted. And that was last August. I've since gotten to 'know' rheddmobile better, and would now be much less likely to make that incorrect interpretation.
Apologies to rheddmobile! :flowerforyou:5 -
This content has been removed.
-
JerSchmare wrote: »I can’t believe this even started, and even more, that it’s still going. OMG!
You must be new here.
These debates just go into suspended animation till someone does a search and resurrects the zombie. 5 -
RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.10 -
NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.30 -
NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritional food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Donated blood yesterday. Sure didn't see any kale as an after donation choice. The Dunkin' Donuts two floors down from the donation center had donated a whole lot of donuts as an after snack though.
I'd say that in this context kale would 99.99% be the wrong thing.
I rarely eat donuts... It sure tasted good
15 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritional food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Donated blood yesterday. Sure didn't see any kale as an after donation choice. The Dunkin' Donuts two floors down from the donation center had donated a whole lot of donuts as an after snack though.
I'd say that in this context kale would 99.99% be the wrong thing.
I rarely eat donuts... It sure tasted good
Great example of context. I rarely eat donuts either. But every once in a while I like a good donut and don't have any trouble fitting it into my diet. Same goes for a lot of other things.
And I hope we're not going to tread back down the path of the myopic, binary "all kale all the time" vs. "all donuts all the time" scenario. I already addressed that one a couple posts back. Neither of them is a good thing.6 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for eating more nutritional food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Donated blood yesterday. Sure didn't see any kale as an after donation choice. The Dunkin' Donuts two floors down from the donation center had donated a whole lot of donuts as an after snack though.
I'd say that in this context kale would 99.99% be the wrong thing.
I rarely eat donuts... It sure tasted good
Great example of context. I rarely eat donuts either. But every once in a while I like a good donut and don't have any trouble fitting it into my diet. Same goes for a lot of other things.
And I hope we're not going to tread back down the path of the myopic, binary "all kale all the time" vs. "all donuts all the time" scenario. I already addressed that one a couple posts back. Neither of them is a good thing.
Oh I fully agree with you!
I like kale just as much as I like donuts (which in truth, is not that much, my preferences are different, but I will eat either if provided, as with the donut yesterday). I really wish people would stop demonizing individual foods without providing context and stipulating dosage.
I find it baffling that one donut should be bad for me but an equal amount of kale the miracle cure (that's how those discussions then to come across to me.) Provided there's not a medical problem, neither are bad for you in appropriate context and dosage. And what that context and that dosage is, really depends on the individual person. If someone decides for themselves, that donuts are never appropriate, then that's their prerogative. That does not mean that person has the right to tell me that donuts are never appropriate without knowing my personal context and dosage limitations (1 donut is my maximum dosage limit. More gives me heartburn. 1/2 serving of Kale every so often is my dosage maximum dosage limit. More gives me a lovely case of diarrhea).6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
This makes total sense to me, especially the satisfaction bit. And I think that people trying to get to a diet on which they can sustain for a lifetime need to take that part seriously. I know that when I get in a frame of mind (and I have) where I think "must not eat donut, must eat more kale to have a perfect day," it generally did not lead anywhere good longer term for a health perspective.
Even now, when I am (for my own reasons) avoiding most dessert type foods and participating in a eat 10+ servings of veg and fruit a day challenge (which is fun and basically how I normally eat anyway), I would NEVER think that prioritizing nutrition and calories (low) over satisfaction is the right way to eat. I know I won't sistain how I am eating if I think of it as purely for nutrition, so I experiment with cooking different cuisines, add spices and herbs and -- gasp! -- oil and salt purely for taste. When I was eating more meat I would almost always choose skin on, bone in chicken over boneless skinless breast (unless I had a specific plan with OTHER ingredients the breast would work well with). I'd add in cheese (for taste) and higher cal options like pulled pork sometimes, so on.
I really think the idea that kale is always better than something more indulgent is wrong, if we are talking holistically, looking at the broad perspective as you so beautifully illustrated. (And I quite like kale, prepared properly.)
Also, getting neurotic about eating kale instead of ever having a donut is going to not do nearly so much for health as getting a broadly healthful diet (with some indulgences if you like), eating calorically appropriate, exercising, and not getting overly stressed about nothing (if you can manage to avoid it). Also a bunch of other things, of course.
I really am frustrated that people don't seem to be engaging, so I will note that I would LOVE it if NorthCascades or someone else who found dismissable or stupid the idea that context would ever dictate something other than the kale would actually respond to your post and explain why they disagree (if they do). Because I found it pretty darned convincing, and if there is another side I'd like to understand and am not just pretending not to get it.2 -
Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.
But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.4 -
I recently got into it with someone about a Big Mac being a health food (I believe it *can* be)
The thing about the popular demonizing of certain foods as healthy or unhealthy is that any food is unhealthy and any food can be healthy; IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR OVERALL DIET. You can't single out a Big Mac as being unhealthy without doing the same for an avocado. I *could* eat Big Macs all day and have excellent B12, manganese, decent calcium and a lot of protein but lacking in vit. C and fibre... I could eat an avocado all day and have amazing fats, fibre and vitamin C but i'd be lacking in protein.
I like to think no one is stupid enough to assume anyone eats only "X-food" and I hope that you look at your diet as a whole to determine its healthfulness.5 -
Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.
But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.
Ugh, cantaloupe used to be one of my favourite fruits but you can't seem to find it fresh anymore and it tastes like cardboard now.0 -
Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.
But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.
I'm talking about finding what's most sustainable, especially longterm. Clearly at 1200 cal, you will be making sacrifices, but I don't think that means giving up on a satisfying diet.
I didn't read AnvilHead as saying that it's important to always have a donut, or for everyone to have one (I don't even like most donuts, although I will fit in an apple cider donut in the fall, for sure, and he said it's a rare time that he wants one). I think it's about the fact that although some foods have more nutrients than others and there's a gradient between a low nutrient diet (which NO ONE is recommending), an adequate diet, and making every single choice about what has the most nutrients. For most people somewhere above adequate, but how much above may vary by day and who you are and how many cals you have, etc. (and some days will probably not be great and I think that's okay and not something to beat yourself up over).
It's also worth noting that what people consider good choices will vary. For example, you said you cut out bread and pasta. I personally am in a phase where I'm actively trying to eat at least 2 servings of whole grains a day, in part just to see how that affects me, and because I think the evidence is that for many whole grains can be a positive addition (I don't care much about grains, especially bread, so for a long time ate little bread, although I did have occasional pasta -- and I find it can be the base for a super nutrient dense meal, just as the bread I had with a super packed with veg soup actually made me feel more satisfied and less like I wanted something else after dinner). So it can depend on the person and the goals. But I'd say all of us do well paying some attention to what feels satisfying -- whatever that may be -- and working that in as it makes sense. NOT just saying that all that matters is picking the most objectively nutrient-dense food (especially as you have to have some variety anyway to have a good diet overall, and I'd obviously agree that donuts fit in the "if it helps you feel happy and satisfied overall," as occasional good restaurant meals do for me, and not in the "needs this for a balanced diet" category). Anyway, I thought that was AnvilHead's point.
When I (briefly) ate 1250, I actually made a huge effort to fit in small amounts of more indulgent ingredients that made my meals feel satisfying, delicious, and normal, not diety. That included (as mentioned above) a bit of feta cheese in an omelet, still cooking with a little olive oil (not a whole lot), some occasional dark chocolate, chicken roasted with skin on, bone in, a huge variety of meats and vegetable preparations (when people say they eat only chicken breast and plain veg I can't imagine it, and don't think it's necessary, but if they like it, that's cool).
Also, when I first ran the numbers and got 1200, I thought something must be wrong and checked every calculator until I realized it was probably right -- at 5'3, 120 (my goal), maintenance would likely be 1550 when sedentary. But then I realized I wasn't really sedentary and did not have to me, and made it my goal to walk enough daily to get normal maintenance to 1800 pre exercise and, of course, to make things like running and biking hobbies. So it's certainly not true that being smaller or older dooms one to a tiny maintenance. Of course, I actually had fewer issues with feeling deprived when I was regularly eating 1500 and losing than now (or even at first when I did 1250 and had no issues, although I think increasing my TDEE and calories made losing over a period of a year easier than it would have been). That's one reason why I think it's important to have a diet that is enjoyable and satisfying when you don't have that exciting "I'm losing weight" thing to pull you through. Or at least that has been my experience.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.
But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.
Ugh, cantaloupe used to be one of my favourite fruits but you can't seem to find it fresh anymore and it tastes like cardboard now.
I adore cantaloupe when I buy it fresh and locally grown (same basic thing) in the summer. In the winter it's in every pre made fruit salad that you get at a lunch meeting or the like and it has no flavor. Never even crosses my mind to buy it. But it's beautiful and delicious and pretty low cal (IMO) for that pleasure in the summer!1 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »I recently got into it with someone about a Big Mac being a health food (I believe it *can* be)
The thing about the popular demonizing of certain foods as healthy or unhealthy is that any food is unhealthy and any food can be healthy; IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR OVERALL DIET. You can't single out a Big Mac as being unhealthy without doing the same for an avocado. I *could* eat Big Macs all day and have excellent B12, manganese, decent calcium and a lot of protein but lacking in vit. C and fibre... I could eat an avocado all day and have amazing fats, fibre and vitamin C but i'd be lacking in protein.
I like to think no one is stupid enough to assume anyone eats only "X-food" and I hope that you look at your diet as a whole to determine its healthfulness.
I'm inclined to agree with you on the last paragraph - but there continue to be people who insist that if someone says "you can eat whatever you want and still lose weight, it's all about calories" that there are some people out there who will interpret that as the go ahead to eat nothing but donuts or snickers. How many times on these boards has someone posted a comment that they wish more people would talk about health and nutrition and that just saying that calories are all that matters for weight loss is misleading? So while yes, I think it's far fetched - I do always ask the poster who asks if a calorie is just a calorie and they can eat snickers and still lose weight if they intend to eat ONLY Snickers... I've yet to find anyone who says "yep, that's my plan,and since you said a calorie is a calorie then I see that as not only permission but encouragement to continue my mono-junk food plan" but I'm going to keep asking since so many on these boards insist that there are all these confused people out there who have never heard that nutrition is important.
Also, if your last paragraph were true we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place in this very thread...7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »...I didn't read AnvilHead as saying that it's important to always have a donut, or for everyone to have one (I don't even like most donuts, although I will fit in an apple cider donut in the fall, for sure, and he said it's a rare time that he wants one). I think it's about the fact that although some foods have more nutrients than others and there's a gradient between a low nutrient diet (which NO ONE is recommending), an adequate diet, and making every single choice about what has the most nutrients. For most people somewhere above adequate, but how much above may vary by day and who you are and how many cals you have, etc. (and some days will probably not be great and I think that's okay and not something to beat yourself up over)...
At least somebody got the point, lol.
No, I'm not saying it's important to eat donuts, or candy, or whatever other made-up "unclean" evil one cares to discuss. What I'm saying is that, speaking in terms of an overall healthy diet, context and dosage matter and are often ignored. A "healthy diet" is not nearly as black and white as some seem to think, and there's a huge middle ground between "orthorexically clean diet" and "filthy nasty diet". It's not a binary "one or the other" thing, although that's often how the argument is often presented.
Speaking in terms of weight loss - specifically about adherence (which is a separate topic from a healthy diet itself) - some people can 'do' moderation, others can't. For some, the mere presence of such foods will cause uncontrollable urges and binging, and for those people it's probably best to stay away from their 'trigger foods' entirely rather than fighting to moderate them. If eating one donut is going to cause you to dive face-first into the box and snarf the entire dozen, and you're then going to restrict your calorie intake for the rest of the day to make up for your 'sin', that creates an unhealthy situation and it's probably best that you just avoid the donuts altogether. Not because the one donut is 'bad' or 'unhealthy', but because the one donut creates other undesirable outcomes.
OTOH, if you're a person who likes <insert 'donuts' or other 'evil food' here> and you can partake in moderation and fit it into your calories/macros without creating adherence issues, I fail to see a problem.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »...I didn't read AnvilHead as saying that it's important to always have a donut, or for everyone to have one (I don't even like most donuts, although I will fit in an apple cider donut in the fall, for sure, and he said it's a rare time that he wants one). I think it's about the fact that although some foods have more nutrients than others and there's a gradient between a low nutrient diet (which NO ONE is recommending), an adequate diet, and making every single choice about what has the most nutrients. For most people somewhere above adequate, but how much above may vary by day and who you are and how many cals you have, etc. (and some days will probably not be great and I think that's okay and not something to beat yourself up over)...
At least somebody got the point, lol.
No, I'm not saying it's important to eat donuts, or candy, or whatever other made-up "unclean" evil one cares to discuss. What I'm saying is that, speaking in terms of an overall healthy diet, context and dosage matter and are often ignored. A "healthy diet" is not nearly as black and white as some seem to think, and there's a huge middle ground between "orthorexically clean diet" and "filthy nasty diet". It's not a binary "one or the other" thing, although that's often how the argument is often presented.
Speaking in terms of weight loss - specifically about adherence (which is a separate topic from a healthy diet itself) - some people can 'do' moderation, others can't. For some, the mere presence of such foods will cause uncontrollable urges and binging, and for those people it's probably best to stay away from their 'trigger foods' entirely rather than fighting to moderate them. If eating one donut is going to cause you to dive face-first into the box and snarf the entire dozen, and you're then going to restrict your calorie intake for the rest of the day to make up for your 'sin', that creates an unhealthy situation and it's probably best that you just avoid the donuts altogether. Not because the one donut is 'bad' or 'unhealthy', but because the one donut creates other undesirable outcomes.
OTOH, if you're a person who likes <insert 'donuts' or other 'evil food' here> and you can partake in moderation and fit it into your calories/macros without creating adherence issues, I fail to see a problem.
I tagged you into another thread where an OP was asking if a calorie was just a calorie, and seemed to be trying to find an absolute answer - what happens if you choose a snickers over an apple, will there be long term consequences. I was trying to make the point - if you eat an apple every day, and suddenly change it to a snickers, and there's nutrients in the apple that you now aren't getting from anywhere - then maybe that's a bad choice. But just like I find it hard to believe that someone intends to eat nothing but junk food, and nothing but a single junk food at that - I also find it hard to believe that some people eat the exact same diet day in and day out such that this hypothetical "what if" conversation trying to pinpoint and isolate each dietary decision down to two choices one which would be objectively better than the other would be fruitful (pun intended).
7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!19
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions