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.
Jack Lalanne's Advice
Options
Replies
-
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaLanne was a very vocal "clean eating" proponent. Probably to the point of being orthorexic, although I doubt that was recognized as a thing back then.
To be honest, don't think orthorexic is really a "thing" now. Pretty much the same status as people who compulsively eat too much sugar and say they can't reduce or stop. BTW, IMO sugar addiction is a bunch of crap. People may eat too many sugar laden foods and have bad health outcomes but no physical addiction. Similar to the situation in people with orthorexia.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/orthorexia-nervosa
Orthorexia nervosa is not currently recognized as a clinical diagnosis in the DSM-5, but many people struggle with symptoms associated with this term.
Those who have an “unhealthy obsession” with otherwise healthy eating may be suffering from “orthorexia nervosa,” a term which literally means “fixation on righteous eating.”
I have known people who limit their lives so that they can stick to their diet of choice -- they don't travel because they can't be assured of organic food the whole time or they don't socialize because they can't control the food they will encounter. I don't know if it needs a fancy name, but to the extent that it keeps them from living their best well-rounded life, I would consider it to be a problem.
Yeah, we want to make good choices, but there is a point of diminishing returns. If you aren't going to visit your grandparents because of the food options in their town, it's a good time to access and see if your diet is driving your happiness and health or if you're just making a fetish of the whole thing.
We had a lady that worked for our company whose job required traveling and she would not travel anywhere unless she was sure there were organic stores/restaurants in the area. While I thought that seemed a little crazy she was actually a very happy and sweet person. It wasn't a problem to her.
I think you can be happy and sweet while dealing with something that limits your life. They don't cancel each other out. I know happy and sweet people who do things like avoid air travel or movie theaters due to anxiety. I wouldn't insist that they seek treatment for this (it's their business), but would they be happier with wider options for travel or entertainment?
Air travel or group entertainments aren't essential for a happy life, but if you're avoiding them due to anxiety I think that it could contribute to a fuller life if addressed.
Same with travelling for work. We don't have to do it in order to be happy, but if food is the only reason you're limiting your career that way -- well, it's a limit on your full potential.
(I say this as someone with anxieties that do limit my full potential range of activities, something I'm working on. That probably colors my perspective here).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaLanne was a very vocal "clean eating" proponent. Probably to the point of being orthorexic, although I doubt that was recognized as a thing back then.
To be honest, don't think orthorexic is really a "thing" now. Pretty much the same status as people who compulsively eat too much sugar and say they can't reduce or stop. BTW, IMO sugar addiction is a bunch of crap. People may eat too many sugar laden foods and have bad health outcomes but no physical addiction. Similar to the situation in people with orthorexia.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/orthorexia-nervosa
Orthorexia nervosa is not currently recognized as a clinical diagnosis in the DSM-5, but many people struggle with symptoms associated with this term.
Those who have an “unhealthy obsession” with otherwise healthy eating may be suffering from “orthorexia nervosa,” a term which literally means “fixation on righteous eating.”
I have known people who limit their lives so that they can stick to their diet of choice -- they don't travel because they can't be assured of organic food the whole time or they don't socialize because they can't control the food they will encounter. I don't know if it needs a fancy name, but to the extent that it keeps them from living their best well-rounded life, I would consider it to be a problem.
Yeah, we want to make good choices, but there is a point of diminishing returns. If you aren't going to visit your grandparents because of the food options in their town, it's a good time to access and see if your diet is driving your happiness and health or if you're just making a fetish of the whole thing.
We had a lady that worked for our company whose job required traveling and she would not travel anywhere unless she was sure there were organic stores/restaurants in the area. While I thought that seemed a little crazy she was actually a very happy and sweet person. It wasn't a problem to her.
I think you can be happy and sweet while dealing with something that limits your life. They don't cancel each other out. I know happy and sweet people who do things like avoid air travel or movie theaters due to anxiety. I wouldn't insist that they seek treatment for this (it's their business), but would they be happier with wider options for travel or entertainment?
Air travel or group entertainments aren't essential for a happy life, but if you're avoiding them due to anxiety I think that it could contribute to a fuller life if addressed.
Same with travelling for work. We don't have to do it in order to be happy, but if food is the only reason you're limiting your career that way -- well, it's a limit on your full potential.
(I say this as someone with anxieties that do limit my full potential range of activities, something I'm working on. That probably colors my perspective here).
Yes, I would agree that it may be a problem, but not that it is inherently a problem.0 -
0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaLanne was a very vocal "clean eating" proponent. Probably to the point of being orthorexic, although I doubt that was recognized as a thing back then.
To be honest, don't think orthorexic is really a "thing" now. Pretty much the same status as people who compulsively eat too much sugar and say they can't reduce or stop. BTW, IMO sugar addiction is a bunch of crap. People may eat too many sugar laden foods and have bad health outcomes but no physical addiction. Similar to the situation in people with orthorexia.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/orthorexia-nervosa
Orthorexia nervosa is not currently recognized as a clinical diagnosis in the DSM-5, but many people struggle with symptoms associated with this term.
Those who have an “unhealthy obsession” with otherwise healthy eating may be suffering from “orthorexia nervosa,” a term which literally means “fixation on righteous eating.”
I have known people who limit their lives so that they can stick to their diet of choice -- they don't travel because they can't be assured of organic food the whole time or they don't socialize because they can't control the food they will encounter. I don't know if it needs a fancy name, but to the extent that it keeps them from living their best well-rounded life, I would consider it to be a problem.
Yeah, we want to make good choices, but there is a point of diminishing returns. If you aren't going to visit your grandparents because of the food options in their town, it's a good time to access and see if your diet is driving your happiness and health or if you're just making a fetish of the whole thing.
We had a lady that worked for our company whose job required traveling and she would not travel anywhere unless she was sure there were organic stores/restaurants in the area. While I thought that seemed a little crazy she was actually a very happy and sweet person. It wasn't a problem to her.
I think you can be happy and sweet while dealing with something that limits your life. They don't cancel each other out. I know happy and sweet people who do things like avoid air travel or movie theaters due to anxiety. I wouldn't insist that they seek treatment for this (it's their business), but would they be happier with wider options for travel or entertainment?
Air travel or group entertainments aren't essential for a happy life, but if you're avoiding them due to anxiety I think that it could contribute to a fuller life if addressed.
Same with travelling for work. We don't have to do it in order to be happy, but if food is the only reason you're limiting your career that way -- well, it's a limit on your full potential.
(I say this as someone with anxieties that do limit my full potential range of activities, something I'm working on. That probably colors my perspective here).
Yes, I would agree that it may be a problem, but not that it is inherently a problem.
I completely agree.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I feel the need to post this, if the OP, as hinted in subsequent posts, is trying to get at the source of why people are so fatty fat fat fat. If you can't read the fine print, the source is NHANES.
Another presentation of similar data for the U.S.A. using a stacked graph (this presentation shows relative contributions to total daily calories for each source - I've posted this before, I think):
Note that total calorie intake was up in 2010 over 1970, but this was entirely due to added fats and flour/cereal products. It looks like somewhere around 500 cals/day increase in average input - no wonder there's an obesity epidemic in the U.S.A. Calories from sugars, veggies, fruit, dairy, and meat/eggs/nuts were flat during this period.
The numbers don't exactly match those from the other graphs - they must have used a different methodology (or data source - they're from different governmental agencies). This graph shows calories from grains going up, the others don't.3 -
Yes. Dairy and meat are there own category and don't have added fat. I'm not sure where the source of your confusion is. The category that showed an increase was added fats. Dairy and meats are more than just fat, you know.
1 -
JerSchmare wrote: »You guys will argue about anything. OMG.
THE LIST IS LEGIT. WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY?
[Edited by mods]
Okay, pardon us if we like to discuss things beyond the blanket categories of "legit" and "non-legit" to get into things like science, current and historical data on American eating patterns, and real-world applications.15 -
JerSchmare wrote: »You guys will argue about anything. OMG.
THE LIST IS LEGIT. WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY?
[Edited by mods]
How is the list legit in context given that people can and do successfully lose weight without eliminating any of those things? It's a gross oversimplification of the whole process of weight management and advice like that has been exactly what's been tripping people up for years.
Losing weight isn't a problem for a lot of people. Keeping it off? That's another story.
Sustainability isn't an issue that should be brushed aside. Life is long, celebrations and events happen. The advice to never have sugar or cookies or cake is preposterous because it's just not realistic for someone who wants to live life AND manage their weight. It doesn't teach anything sustainably useful.
It's just a band aid.13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Yes. Dairy and meat are there own category and don't have added fat. I'm not sure where the source of your confusion is. The category that showed an increase was added fats. Dairy and meats are more than just fat, you know.
I rest my case. There should have been more type of fats in the 6th graph.
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »None of those items were big parts of my diet when I got fat, was fat or when I lost weight, or when I maintain at goal weight.
This, and therefore I did not GREATLY reduce them (I did reduce some of them some, sure -- I barely bake anymore), and I saw no need to eliminate them. If someone is eating a whole lot of those kinds of foods (canned fruit? that seems dated), then sure, greatly reducing them is common sense. I think it makes MORE sense to focus on eating a balanced, nutrient-dense diet full of things like vegetables, fruit (I don't like canned fruit but don't see why that would be an issue unless sugar is added and it's higher in calories than you realize), protein, healthy sources of fat, whole food or more fibrous sources of carbs (oats, other whole grains, potatoes and sweet potatoes, beans and lentils), and so on. Then (assuming appropriate calories), there's no real need to focus on what you limit, as there's no room for lots of high cal sweets or snack foods. At least, that's what makes sense for me.
Another more sensible way for me personally to apply this is to focus on my main meals (which generally are made up of nutrient dense foods) and limit between meal eating. Some like snacking, so this wouldn't work for them, but it is far more significant for me than eliminating foods would be.
I was a child in the 1960's and remember any fruit that came from a can at home, school or friends/relatives was swimming in liquid that had the viscosity of motor oil. I'm pretty sure fruit packed in heavy syrup was what was typically available. Looking at what's out there now a serving of canned peaches in their own juice is half the calories of peaches packed in heavy syrup.
Regarding what people are eating I posted this list up-thread:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet as a whole (sure there are differences among people) are calorie dense and nutrient poor so it does seem a lot of people are eating significant amounts of these items. I would think anyone who would want to control calories in would want to start with reducing (not necessarily eliminating) their intake of these items as opposed to other items that are more nutrient dense.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I feel the need to post this, if the OP, as hinted in subsequent posts, is trying to get at the source of why people are so fatty fat fat fat. If you can't read the fine print, the source is NHANES.
People are fatty, fat, fat because they eat more calories than they burn, CICO, that simple.
Nice charts and good source.
The USDA and American Heart Association recommend 6 teaspoons (females) or 9 teaspoons (males) of added sugar a day or an average of 7.5 teaspoons/person. There are about 4 grams of sugar per teaspoon so the average American should be eating no more than 30g of added sugar a day. Per the charts you posted we are currently at 90g per person or 3X that amount even though we're down about 20% from the high.
Again I firmly believe in CICO from a weight control perspective. I also believe that for those who want to lose weight or are having trouble controlling their weight, significantly reducing the intake of foods with added sugar (many of which also include high levels of non-healthy fats like cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, ice cream and granola bars). Cutting back on regular pop is a no brainer for those looking to manage their weight.
I eat that stuff on a limited basis and have maintained my weight for all my adult life. If I start to see a bit of creep though, that is the first thing I cut back on.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Yes. Dairy and meat are there own category and don't have added fat. I'm not sure where the source of your confusion is. The category that showed an increase was added fats. Dairy and meats are more than just fat, you know.
I rest my case. There should have been more type of fats in the 6th graph.
Why? I get the impression that you are misunderstanding the graph.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Why? I get the impression that you are misunderstanding the graph.
*Sigh*.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Yes. Dairy and meat are there own category and don't have added fat. I'm not sure where the source of your confusion is. The category that showed an increase was added fats. Dairy and meats are more than just fat, you know.
I rest my case. There should have been more type of fats in the 6th graph.
Why? I get the impression that you are misunderstanding the graph.
I think the distinction between *added* fats and fats that are inherent to meat and (non-butter/cream) dairy is potentially causing the confusion?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »None of those items were big parts of my diet when I got fat, was fat or when I lost weight, or when I maintain at goal weight.
This, and therefore I did not GREATLY reduce them (I did reduce some of them some, sure -- I barely bake anymore), and I saw no need to eliminate them. If someone is eating a whole lot of those kinds of foods (canned fruit? that seems dated), then sure, greatly reducing them is common sense. I think it makes MORE sense to focus on eating a balanced, nutrient-dense diet full of things like vegetables, fruit (I don't like canned fruit but don't see why that would be an issue unless sugar is added and it's higher in calories than you realize), protein, healthy sources of fat, whole food or more fibrous sources of carbs (oats, other whole grains, potatoes and sweet potatoes, beans and lentils), and so on. Then (assuming appropriate calories), there's no real need to focus on what you limit, as there's no room for lots of high cal sweets or snack foods. At least, that's what makes sense for me.
Another more sensible way for me personally to apply this is to focus on my main meals (which generally are made up of nutrient dense foods) and limit between meal eating. Some like snacking, so this wouldn't work for them, but it is far more significant for me than eliminating foods would be.
I was a child in the 1960's and remember any fruit that came from a can at home, school or friends/relatives was swimming in liquid that had the viscosity of motor oil.
I remember only canned peaches and canned pears (canned peaches I mostly associate with Deadwood now). I doubt anyone really consumed enormous amounts of calories from those or jam and jelly, as janejellyroll already pointed out, but your experience may have been different (I was a child in the '70s and '80s).
As for now, I don't think canned fruit is common at all, anymore. I see fruit salad a lot, but it has no sugar added.Regarding what people are eating I posted this list up-thread
I know, but I don't think it's relevant. This is our usual disagreement. You seem to want to focus on what other people are eating and use that to make generic recommendations. My point is how is that helpful if your own diet patterns are different. I did not eat a lot of, say, canned fruit, jam or jelly, or sweets, so "greatly limiting" or eliminating those foods would not have addressed why I personally was overeating. As I said before, I did reduce to some degree those foods (I sometimes mindlessly eat sugary things at the office and I stopped that by working on mindless eating and not snacking), but there was no need to think about reducing them greatly or eliminating them. I instead looked at how I personally was overeating and adjusted my diet to deal with that issue, and that's what I recommend others do. I think understanding your own diet and habits is MUCH MORE SENSIBLE than doing something based on what you think the average American diet is.
I also said -- and I note that you did not respond -- that if one focuses on not overeating and eating a nutritious balanced diet with enough protein, lots and lots of vegetables, adequate sources of fiber, healthy fats, and a variety of whole foods that supply nutrients, and eat mostly nutritious meals and not a lot of treat foods in lieu of meals, then you likely won't be fitting in lots of added sugar and so on anyway. No need to worry about whether you should cut out cakes, and no need to cut way down on them, since you won't be eating a whole lot anyway.
I think that's a more sensible way to approach the issue and more likely to educate people with what nutrition involves and also to make it about positive changes -- eat your vegetables! ;-) -- and not just a bunch of avoid this, avoid that. But the result probably looks the same, since you don't seem to be saying to cut things out and I'm not saying to eat without regard to nutrition (OBVIOUSLY!).
So I am puzzled why, instead of responding to what I actually said, you provided a list that had already been provided and is not, IMO, relevant (since I don't eat the so called SAD in a whole lot of ways, some that are positive and some that are neutral). Saying "ah-ha! everyone should cut way down on cookies, including you, since look at this list of American cookie eating habits" makes no sense if the person you are talking to hates cookies and never eats them (I don't hate cookies, but I don't eat them all that much except for a really limited period this time of year).7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Yes. Dairy and meat are there own category and don't have added fat. I'm not sure where the source of your confusion is. The category that showed an increase was added fats. Dairy and meats are more than just fat, you know.
I rest my case. There should have been more type of fats in the 6th graph.
You have no case. Cheese is dairy. Meats are meats. You don't understand the difference between intrinsic fat and added fat, apparently.7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I feel the need to post this, if the OP, as hinted in subsequent posts, is trying to get at the source of why people are so fatty fat fat fat. If you can't read the fine print, the source is NHANES.
People are fatty, fat, fat because they eat more calories than they burn, CICO, that simple.
Nice charts and good source.
The USDA and American Heart Association recommend 6 teaspoons (females) or 9 teaspoons (males) of added sugar a day or an average of 7.5 teaspoons/person. There are about 4 grams of sugar per teaspoon so the average American should be eating no more than 30g of added sugar a day. Per the charts you posted we are currently at 90g per person or 3X that amount even though we're down about 20% from the high.
Again I firmly believe in CICO from a weight control perspective. I also believe that for those who want to lose weight or are having trouble controlling their weight, significantly reducing the intake of foods with added sugar (many of which also include high levels of non-healthy fats like cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, ice cream and granola bars). Cutting back on regular pop is a no brainer for those looking to manage their weight.
I eat that stuff on a limited basis and have maintained my weight for all my adult life. If I start to see a bit of creep though, that is the first thing I cut back on.
While you have a point with added pop, it's silly to emphasize the importance of the added sugar in snack foods when gram for gram, the added fat has more than twice the calories of the added sugar.
It's just plain silly to demonize the sugar in isolation, and I think you know that. It's a convenient scapegoat, and it's a proxy for cutting out high calorie foods that often contain little nutrition, but it's not meaningful advice when you get down to the nitty gritty of doing this day in and day out.
I think you also know that.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions