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.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*8 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
To be fair, I often see people here using the example of a single food diet when trying to make a point, so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone wasn't referring to a single food diet when saying that cake is worse than broccoli.
If you're talking about two different diets that include all kinds of foods, I'm not sure that the statement that cake is worse than broccoli holds up. If you're not talking about a monodiet, you're basically saying "a diet that includes cake is worse than a diet that includes broccoli," right? But how can we know that? If we're talking about an overall style of eating and not a monodiet, there's so much context we don't know. How many calories are involved? What other foods are involved? Are nutrient needs being met overall?
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
To be fair, I often see people here using the example of a single food diet when trying to make a point, so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone wasn't referring to a single food diet when saying that cake is worse than broccoli.
If you're talking about two different diets that include all kinds of foods, I'm not sure that the statement that cake is worse than broccoli holds up. If you're not talking about a monodiet, you're basically saying "a diet that includes cake is worse than a diet that includes broccoli," right? But how can we know that? If we're talking about an overall style of eating and not a monodiet, there's so much context we don't know. How many calories are involved? What other foods are involved? Are nutrient needs being met overall?
I track my micros and include all foods. I am active enough to eat 1800-2K and lose weight if I need to but if you're sedentary and eating a poverty macro diet of 1200 calories it's damn near impossible to hit micros if you're including nutritionally questionable foods tbh. For weight loss it matters 0, but if one were inclined to care about other factors (such as overall health) I would re-consider my food choices or put in some work so I could have discretionary calories.3 -
I struggle on 1800 in some areas and my diet is pretty clean most of the time.
2 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
To be fair, I often see people here using the example of a single food diet when trying to make a point, so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone wasn't referring to a single food diet when saying that cake is worse than broccoli.
If you're talking about two different diets that include all kinds of foods, I'm not sure that the statement that cake is worse than broccoli holds up. If you're not talking about a monodiet, you're basically saying "a diet that includes cake is worse than a diet that includes broccoli," right? But how can we know that? If we're talking about an overall style of eating and not a monodiet, there's so much context we don't know. How many calories are involved? What other foods are involved? Are nutrient needs being met overall?
I track my micros and include all foods. I am active enough to eat 1800-2K and lose weight if I need to but if you're sedentary and eating a poverty macro diet of 1200 calories it's damn near impossible to hit micros if you're including nutritionally questionable foods tbh. For weight loss it matters 0, but if one were inclined to care about other factors (such as overall health) I would re-consider my food choices or put in some work so I could have discretionary calories.
I didn't know we were working from the default of a sedentary person with a goal of 1,200. Sorry for missing that context.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
To be fair, I often see people here using the example of a single food diet when trying to make a point, so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone wasn't referring to a single food diet when saying that cake is worse than broccoli.
If you're talking about two different diets that include all kinds of foods, I'm not sure that the statement that cake is worse than broccoli holds up. If you're not talking about a monodiet, you're basically saying "a diet that includes cake is worse than a diet that includes broccoli," right? But how can we know that? If we're talking about an overall style of eating and not a monodiet, there's so much context we don't know. How many calories are involved? What other foods are involved? Are nutrient needs being met overall?
I track my micros and include all foods. I am active enough to eat 1800-2K and lose weight if I need to but if you're sedentary and eating a poverty macro diet of 1200 calories it's damn near impossible to hit micros if you're including nutritionally questionable foods tbh. For weight loss it matters 0, but if one were inclined to care about other factors (such as overall health) I would re-consider my food choices or put in some work so I could have discretionary calories.
I didn't know we were working from the default of a sedentary person with a goal of 1,200. Sorry for missing that context.
It's difficult on 1800 too if I'm not mindful of how many discretionary calories I have daily.0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
To be fair, I often see people here using the example of a single food diet when trying to make a point, so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone wasn't referring to a single food diet when saying that cake is worse than broccoli.
If you're talking about two different diets that include all kinds of foods, I'm not sure that the statement that cake is worse than broccoli holds up. If you're not talking about a monodiet, you're basically saying "a diet that includes cake is worse than a diet that includes broccoli," right? But how can we know that? If we're talking about an overall style of eating and not a monodiet, there's so much context we don't know. How many calories are involved? What other foods are involved? Are nutrient needs being met overall?
I track my micros and include all foods. I am active enough to eat 1800-2K and lose weight if I need to but if you're sedentary and eating a poverty macro diet of 1200 calories it's damn near impossible to hit micros if you're including nutritionally questionable foods tbh. For weight loss it matters 0, but if one were inclined to care about other factors (such as overall health) I would re-consider my food choices or put in some work so I could have discretionary calories.
Agree, mostly.
But that's why I don't think the "what can you eat on 1200" is the best example always. If you can exercise, it's probably more important for your health (along with being a healthy weight) than any particular food choice, so if someone chooses to be sedentary and then says they can't eat cake because health, I'm skeptical. (On the other hand, I almost never eat cake because I like it okay, but not enough for the calories. Pie or ice cream, on the other hand...) ;-)
Also, I did 1200, and it was possible to get in many MORE vegetables than most people eat (even people who claim to be focused on "clean eating" or health in many cases) plus plenty of protein and still have discretionary calories. IMO, substituting some ice cream for starch sides or oil or cheese on occasion is possible within a nutrient dense diet, especially if it is not every day, and of course a small piece of chocolate might be only 50 cal.
I don't think this thread was every about whether food choice mattered, however, so I guess I'm confused at the turn the conversation has taken. (In case anyone is unclear, I think diet matters. But, re the topic of the thread, I would not use it as my sole approach to many medical conditions.)5 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »I struggle on 1800 in some areas and my diet is pretty clean most of the time.
Is that the daily or weekly view? I tend to use the weekly view to ensure things are balanced out -- even if I have a day that is lower in a particular nutrient, I find I'm virtually always at a comfortable level for the week.
(Not meaning this as unsolicited advice, just sharing how I make it work while sometimes having cake or other more discretionary foods. I eat in the ballpark of where you do for calories).4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I struggle on 1800 in some areas and my diet is pretty clean most of the time.
Is that the daily or weekly view? I tend to use the weekly view to ensure things are balanced out -- even if I have a day that is lower in a particular nutrient, I find I'm virtually always at a comfortable level for the week.
(Not meaning this as unsolicited advice, just sharing how I make it work while sometimes having cake or other more discretionary foods. I eat in the ballpark of where you do for calories).
That was daily I didn't know I could look at nutrients weekly. Will have to check that out.0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I struggle on 1800 in some areas and my diet is pretty clean most of the time.
Is that the daily or weekly view? I tend to use the weekly view to ensure things are balanced out -- even if I have a day that is lower in a particular nutrient, I find I'm virtually always at a comfortable level for the week.
(Not meaning this as unsolicited advice, just sharing how I make it work while sometimes having cake or other more discretionary foods. I eat in the ballpark of where you do for calories).
That was daily I didn't know I could look at nutrients weekly. Will have to check that out.
If you're on the website, you can choose "Trends" at the top and then select "Nutrition Report." It will give you your weekly averages.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I struggle on 1800 in some areas and my diet is pretty clean most of the time.
Is that the daily or weekly view? I tend to use the weekly view to ensure things are balanced out -- even if I have a day that is lower in a particular nutrient, I find I'm virtually always at a comfortable level for the week.
(Not meaning this as unsolicited advice, just sharing how I make it work while sometimes having cake or other more discretionary foods. I eat in the ballpark of where you do for calories).
That was daily I didn't know I could look at nutrients weekly. Will have to check that out.
If you're on the website, you can choose "Trends" at the top and then select "Nutrition Report." It will give you your weekly averages.
Awesome, I just did. I suck at Calcium and Potassium haha0 -
You might be better off than you think, @mrsnattybulking . Some nutrition entries are optional. For instance, there are days where I know my potassium intake was impressive but MFP showed that I was lacking. It wasn't counting the potassium on all my entries.2
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I struggle on 1800 in some areas and my diet is pretty clean most of the time.
Is that the daily or weekly view? I tend to use the weekly view to ensure things are balanced out -- even if I have a day that is lower in a particular nutrient, I find I'm virtually always at a comfortable level for the week.
(Not meaning this as unsolicited advice, just sharing how I make it work while sometimes having cake or other more discretionary foods. I eat in the ballpark of where you do for calories).
That was daily I didn't know I could look at nutrients weekly. Will have to check that out.
If you're on the website, you can choose "Trends" at the top and then select "Nutrition Report." It will give you your weekly averages.
Awesome, I just did. I suck at Calcium and Potassium haha
Basically what jgnatca said -- are you sure? Potassium in particular is in MANY foods, but if you aren't using the USDA entries you might be missing them. (It's even in coffee, I guess, although I never log that.)0 -
You might be better off than you think, @mrsnattybulking . Some nutrition entries are optional. For instance, there are days where I know my potassium intake was impressive but MFP showed that I was lacking. It wasn't counting the potassium on all my entries.
That's why I switched to Cronometer, the database is really comprehensive with respect to micros. All my foods have it unless it's a UPC add1 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
Under no other circumstances does "cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH" make any sense. Because I can assure you that not eating your broccoli but instead having dessert on occasion is not going to impact your health.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
@TenderBlender667 holistic nutrition is accepted by most using MFP I expect but most do not post on MFP. Most with a medical background and/or leaky gut, candida, etc related health issues know they can be real health issues. Keep learning your way forward but keep asking your good questions and questioning all sources and in time you can better sort out the difference between facts and personal opinions not supported by research.
I find this funny because you seem to regularly place your personal opinions in higher regard than facts.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
Under no other circumstances does "cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH" make any sense. Because I can assure you that not eating your broccoli but instead having dessert on occasion is not going to impact your health.
on occasion lol. Drink that IIFYM kool aid and have 25% of your daily calories come from cake and cookies and lets compare micro profiles 3 months down the road.16 -
Because it's bugging me, and I really want to know:mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does)
What is the "poptarts-all-day kool-aid" and what does it have to do with the thread?
I haven't noticed anyone recommending all-day poptarts (or having poptarts or "junk food" make up a large percentage of calories on a daily basis), and I am not sure what it has to do with holistic nutrition (as taught in the school OP referenced) or the validity of leaky gut, adrenal fatigue, etc.
I would agree that the vast majority (like pretty much everyone who is a regular) would agree that a healthy diet is a good thing and, well, generally good for health, although there are many other factors to health too.8 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I don't personally drink the poptarts-all-day kool-aid (nor do I believe anyone enjoying any long term success does) Food IS our fuel, it's literally the only way our bodies receive the vitamins and minerals and macros they need to fight disease and thrive. I can't think of a single credible person on this site that would disagree that cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH, but common sense would have us all strike a balance that allows us the freedom to include foods we love to eat because they taste good, with foods we love to eat because they have health benefits. You don't have to be one way or the other. Persons on either side of this argument are equally obnoxious and I personally like to hang out in the calories have context middle ground.
A diet of nothing but broccoli could possibly more detrimental to your health than a diet of nothing but cake.
In terms of HEALTH, context of the entire diet is important, no single food item.
I guess I gave too much credit by assuming the readers had the common sense to deduce that I wasn't referring to a sole diet of either or but thanks for pointing that out *eyeroll*
Under no other circumstances does "cake < broccoli in terms of HEALTH" make any sense. Because I can assure you that not eating your broccoli but instead having dessert on occasion is not going to impact your health.
on occasion lol. Drink that IIFYM kool aid and have 25% of your daily calories come from cake and cookies and lets compare micro profiles 3 months down the road.
To be fair he did say on occasion...0 -
“Compare micro profiles”? To be fair it should be by blood test. I’ll guarantee that those on maintenance or on a “bulk” will have better numbers. After we get our minimums the rest really doesn’t matter.
When my diet was hovering around the minimum I had brittle nails and hair. As I ate more those problems went away.
What really put the rose in my cheeks wasn’t a vitamin, holistic treatment, food, cosmetic, cream or soap. It was running.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions