Are there really no bad carbs?
Replies
-
These ridiculous arguments always begin with the false premise that you can only eat 100% "clean", or exist entirely upon calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods. Completely ignoring any possibility that there could be a middle ground where one applies a little common sense and eats a reasonably balanced, nutritious diet with room for treats.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
To quote Eric Helms, "Once our nutritional needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".20 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I know that I am going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I have become increasingly fed up by the people posting on MFP that there are no such things as bad carbs. This is really poor advice. The theory that as long as you maintain a calorie deficit you will lose weight may be true but it is appalling advice. On this basis you are suggesting that a diet of only cake and cookies is as valid as one full of vegetables, and as likely to lead to weight loss. That is simply wrong. On the cake diet I would feel dreadful, and I am setting myself up for failure as I am unlikely to feel satisfied with the portions of cake I can eat to stay in deficit.
Learning how to eat a nutritionally sound diet which is satisfying, energising and likely to stop me getting diabetes is part of the journey that people need to be on if they want to lose weight permanently. You can all call this woo and tell me the problem with cake is not the carbs it is the fat but really? Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)8 -
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
You would need to know a lot more information about the people before being able to answer that. Are they all the same size, weight, height? All male or female (they need different nutrition) any underlying medical problems. Then we'd need to know how they behave on the island.
I'm guessing you're asking this question hoping the "clean eaters" would all say the one eating Big Macs would die first, rather than us realising we're all different so couldn't possibly answer your question and it would probably not be what they're eating that would kill them.14 -
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
You would need to know a lot more information about the people before being able to answer that. Are they all the same size, weight, height? All male or female (they need different nutrition) any underlying medical problems. Then we'd need to know how they behave on the island.
I'm guessing you're asking this question hoping the "clean eaters" would all say the one eating Big Macs would die first, rather than us realising we're all different so couldn't possibly answer your question and it would probably not be what they're eating that would kill them.
Those questions are only relevant if we're going to compare their weight gain/loss, body composition, athletic performance, etc. - and yes, they got brought up in the other thread too, in an attempt to muddy up the issue and avoid answering the question. But for the sake of argument, let's assume they have identical living conditions, no pre-existing medical conditions and no allergies/intolerances to the diets they're given.
We're only talking about which one is going to survive the longest based upon their diet.3 -
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
You would need to know a lot more information about the people before being able to answer that. Are they all the same size, weight, height? All male or female (they need different nutrition) any underlying medical problems. Then we'd need to know how they behave on the island.
I'm guessing you're asking this question hoping the "clean eaters" would all say the one eating Big Macs would die first, rather than us realising we're all different so couldn't possibly answer your question and it would probably not be what they're eating that would kill them.
Those questions are only relevant if we're going to compare their weight gain/loss, body composition, athletic performance, etc. - and yes, they got brought up in the other thread too, in an attempt to muddy up the issue. But for the sake of argument, let's assume they have no pre-existing medical conditions and no allergies/intolerances to the diets they're given.
We're only talking about which one is going to survive the longest.
What type of beans?
9 -
There are no bad carbs. In fact, there are no bad foods. Wrapping your head around that and removing the “bad” label from food is the first step to freedom and ultimately success IMO.JanetBiard wrote: »I did not say anyone has advocated a diet of cake and cookies. What I am saying is that is the logical ridiculous end point of the claims that there are no bad carbs. If there were no bad carbs then the cake and cookie diet would be fine but as you say it is clearly ridiculous.
And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
I have deliberately made a ridiculous suggestion about just eating cakes and cookies to highlight why “there are no bad carbs “ is a ridiculous position to take and unhelpful to the people who ask about this.
Making suggestions to reduce refined highly processed carbs would be helpful to people. But time after time I see people who ask about carbs getting the answer “there are no bad carbs” and anyone who suggests otherwise gets a load of woos added as a response. It is not supportive of the people who are asking for help or the people who are trying to make helpful suggestions.
I ate cake last night. And pizza.
Tonight I will eat chicken, pasta and broccoli.
Balance.
I have maintained an 89lb+ loss for eight going on nine years. Finally accepting that I don’t have to have the perfect diet, just a reasonably good one is what kept and keeps me on track. In my experience the notion that certain kinds of food are bad leads to guilt, feelings of failure and ultimately giving up.
12 -
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
You would need to know a lot more information about the people before being able to answer that. Are they all the same size, weight, height? All male or female (they need different nutrition) any underlying medical problems. Then we'd need to know how they behave on the island.
I'm guessing you're asking this question hoping the "clean eaters" would all say the one eating Big Macs would die first, rather than us realising we're all different so couldn't possibly answer your question and it would probably not be what they're eating that would kill them.
Those questions are only relevant if we're going to compare their weight gain/loss, body composition, athletic performance, etc. - and yes, they got brought up in the other thread too, in an attempt to muddy up the issue. But for the sake of argument, let's assume they have no pre-existing medical conditions and no allergies/intolerances to the diets they're given.
We're only talking about which one is going to survive the longest.
What type of beans?
I admire your determination to really dissect the question, but you're missing the point.
Are you saying that there is a person out there who because of their unique biology would be healthy eating nothing but broccoli and carrots for the rest of their lives? Or there is one kind of bean that includes all the macros and nutrients the body needs, and that at quantities high enough to provide enough calories would be digestable?12 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I did not say anyone has advocated a diet of cake and cookies. What I am saying is that is the logical ridiculous end point of the claims that there are no bad carbs. If there were no bad carbs then the cake and cookie diet would be fine but as you say it is clearly ridiculous.
And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
I have deliberately made a ridiculous suggestion about just eating cakes and cookies to highlight why “there are no bad carbs “ is a ridiculous position to take and unhelpful to the people who ask about this.
Making suggestions to reduce refined highly processed carbs would be helpful to people. But time after time I see people who ask about carbs getting the answer “there are no bad carbs” and anyone who suggests otherwise gets a load of woos added as a response. It is not supportive of the people who are asking for help or the people who are trying to make helpful suggestions.
well I have eaten what I wanted of course in moderation and I have stayed on track for the most part. im almost 5 years into my journey and have taken diet breaks often. I however couldnt stay on track when I had to cut out the so called bad carbs and tried to eat nothing but "good carbs" There are days that I overdo the "bad" carbs but I get right back on track the next day. so for me there are no good and bad carbs. just carbs.3 -
JanetBiard wrote: »Thank you to those of you who have made thoughtful contributions above, I appreciate this.
I don’t have any particular “brand of woo”, I wanted to understand why any suggestion that there might be bad carbs, that it might be helpful to stop eating, gets such a negative response on this community. It seems strange to me, as the calorie dense, nutritionally poor, highly processed foods we are surrounded with seems to me to be a contributory factor in weight gain.
Oh well, I will stick to my journey and you will stick to yours.
my weight gain came from overeating too many fruits and veggies. I can put away a lot of fruit in a day if calories werent an issue. that was the time I cut out what you may call bad carbs.I also put on weight because I was less active as well.2 -
There are no bad carbs. In fact, there are no bad foods. Wrapping your head around that and removing the “bad” label from food is the first step to freedom and ultimately success IMO.JanetBiard wrote: »I did not say anyone has advocated a diet of cake and cookies. What I am saying is that is the logical ridiculous end point of the claims that there are no bad carbs. If there were no bad carbs then the cake and cookie diet would be fine but as you say it is clearly ridiculous.
And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
I have deliberately made a ridiculous suggestion about just eating cakes and cookies to highlight why “there are no bad carbs “ is a ridiculous position to take and unhelpful to the people who ask about this.
Making suggestions to reduce refined highly processed carbs would be helpful to people. But time after time I see people who ask about carbs getting the answer “there are no bad carbs” and anyone who suggests otherwise gets a load of woos added as a response. It is not supportive of the people who are asking for help or the people who are trying to make helpful suggestions.
I ate cake last night. And pizza.
Tonight I will eat chicken, pasta and broccoli.
Balance.
I have maintained an 89lb+ loss for eight going on nine years. Finally accepting that I don’t have to have the perfect diet, just a reasonably good one is what kept and keeps me on track. In my experience the notion that certain kinds of food are bad leads to guilt, feelings of failure and ultimately giving up.
Most people aren't going to succeed with an overly restrictive diet approach and trying to white-knuckle it through every single day. The most likely results are either a full-blown eating disorder or an epic fail/regain.8 -
fitoverfortymom wrote: »I ate an extremely rude Snickers bar once. That was a bad carb if I've ever seen one.
12 -
JanetBiard wrote: »Thank you to those of you who have made thoughtful contributions above, I appreciate this.
I don’t have any particular “brand of woo”, I wanted to understand why any suggestion that there might be bad carbs, that it might be helpful to stop eating, gets such a negative response on this community. It seems strange to me, as the calorie dense, nutritionally poor, highly processed foods we are surrounded with seems to me to be a contributory factor in weight gain.
Oh well, I will stick to my journey and you will stick to yours.
I haven't completed reading the thread, and I will get to it, but I wanted to address this point with my own experiences.
People who are suggesting that everything in moderation, that there are no bad foods without context within the overall diet, those people saved me. I had an all-or-nothing mindset, cut out the "bad" foods, eat "clean." So I would be strict with myself for several weeks (sometimes months). Because I was depriving myself of these things, I would give in eat something that was "bad" and then feel guilty. Well, since I've blown it anyways, I might as well eat whatever I want the rest of today. This then turned into, "I'll start again on Monday." In the meantime feeling guilt and shame for being so weak, giving in to all the "bad" foods. It would take eating one "bad" food to set off this cycle.
Coming here, reading these forums, learning from many of those who are still around and care enough to continue to support new people, and many who are no longer here with us, helped me break out of that cycle. I no longer feel guilt or shame when I eat ice cream, or bread, or a cookie. That's not to say I eat nothing else, no one advocates that. I just don't feel the same way about it. Now, I can eat a balanced diet throughout the day, have a cookie or ice cream at night, and go to bed feeling good that I am moving towards my goals.
People tend to be hard enough on themselves without adding this notion of "good" and "bad" foods. It's pointless and just adds more misery to the process of weight loss. Which can be miserable to begin with, considering people often feel bad enough for getting to this point in the first place.25 -
JanetBiard wrote: »And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
I've only read the first few posts so this has probably already been addressed by other posters, but...
The bolded point is EXACTLY what helps me to stay on track. If I had to cut out everything I love to eat, I would not have been able to stick to a reduced calorie intake and lose 70lbs - and keep it off. And I do not eat nothing but cake and chocolate.
As just about everyone else has said, there are no "bad carbs" (or "bad foods"). There might be foods that an individual finds harder to moderate than others, but no particular food is bad for you unless you're allergic or the food has gone off.
I find it interesting that so many people seem to jump to the conclusion that saying you can enjoy anything in moderation automatically means nutrition counts for nothing and we should all be eating mountains of cake.
It also seems to be a bit of an abdication of personal responsibility for some, to claim that they can't lose weight because of Teh Carbzzz! or Teh Sugarzzz! or whatever the Evil Food of the Day is. Or having a wonky thyroid, or being over 40, or being unable to exercise due to physical limitations. Anyone can lose weight with a calorie deficit. Anyone. The only variation is in what method is the best and most sustainable for that individual.
14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
You just need better cakeJanetBiard wrote: »Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I can’t think of a chemical I’ve ever put in a came either.
You know, it's interesting but true that these kinds of posts seem to assume that everyone eats tons of packaged cakes or some such (although read the label if you want to know). If I have cake (which isn't that often because I don't enjoy making it and pie is better anyways), it will be homemade (not by me, normally) or from a bakery that uses stuff like eggs, butter, sugar, flour. I mean, like everything else those are made up of chemicals, but I suspect that's not what OP meant.
I think part of this is the desire to believe that it's these mysterious chemicals that made you fat and not simply overeating (which some people hate admitting to).
5 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I did not say anyone has advocated a diet of cake and cookies. What I am saying is that is the logical ridiculous end point of the claims that there are no bad carbs. If there were no bad carbs then the cake and cookie diet would be fine but as you say it is clearly ridiculous.
And of course I agree that there is nothing wrong with a treat now and then. But advocating a just eat what you want as long as you stay in your calories is not going to help people stay on track.
I have deliberately made a ridiculous suggestion about just eating cakes and cookies to highlight why “there are no bad carbs “ is a ridiculous position to take and unhelpful to the people who ask about this.
Making suggestions to reduce refined highly processed carbs would be helpful to people. But time after time I see people who ask about carbs getting the answer “there are no bad carbs” and anyone who suggests otherwise gets a load of woos added as a response. It is not supportive of the people who are asking for help or the people who are trying to make helpful suggestions.
When I was new on the MFP forums I used to share your belief and extrapolate that MFP was Junk Food Advocation Central. I was wrong. No one here is advocating for unbalanced diets.
Sure, some posters do say “there are no bad carbs” and leave it at that. But there are a lot of posters, including many people on this thread, who take the time to give more nuanced answers. Those are the posters to read.7 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I know that I am going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I have become increasingly fed up by the people posting on MFP that there are no such things as bad carbs. This is really poor advice. The theory that as long as you maintain a calorie deficit you will lose weight may be true but it is appalling advice. On this basis you are suggesting that a diet of only cake and cookies is as valid as one full of vegetables, and as likely to lead to weight loss. That is simply wrong. On the cake diet I would feel dreadful, and I am setting myself up for failure as I am unlikely to feel satisfied with the portions of cake I can eat to stay in deficit.
Learning how to eat a nutritionally sound diet which is satisfying, energising and likely to stop me getting diabetes is part of the journey that people need to be on if they want to lose weight permanently. You can all call this woo and tell me the problem with cake is not the carbs it is the fat but really? Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
Although it pains me to say it, looking over the options, I have to concede that the Big Macs are the more balanced meal.7 -
Fed up after only 16 posts?? Seriously?? Maybe your skin is too thin.6
-
Just one cmment. I have type 2 diabetes due mostly to genetics and to obesity. I have to watch my sugar/carb intake now, but eatng sweets does not make you diabetic11
-
I met a bad carb once. He was going to take my lunch money, so I pounded him! On a serious note, i think carbs get a bad rap. They are easy to over eat on when combined with liberal amounts of fat. Though, try eating 1000 calories worth of boiled sweet potato or quinoa. It's really hard. 1000 calories of fat and carbs like m&m' s deliciously easy.3
-
12 -
-
I also wonder if people know that excess fat gets stored via asp? Protein can cause a massive insulin response as well. One of the reasons a protein shake, especial a clean one like whey, is taken after a heavy weight lifting session. Insulin will push protein into the muscles to help restore it after break down. I also remember a study that showed whey protein for type 2 dm patients showed an increase in insulin production.0
-
psychod787 wrote: »I also wonder if people know that excess fat gets stored via asp? Protein can cause a massive insulin response as well. One of the reasons a protein shake, especial a clean one like whey, is taken after a heavy weight lifting session. Insulin will push protein into the muscles to help restore it after break down. I also remember a study that showed whey protein for type 2 dm patients showed an increase in insulin production.
For whatever reason (lack of knowledge about physiology, I guess), the current belief du jour is that fat somehow magically doesn't get stored as fat, even though it's the easiest macronutrient for the body to store with minimal conversion involved.
The ketovangelist quacks have convinced everybody that carbs immediately and irrevocably get stored as fat (even if you're in a deficit) - even though the truth is that a) there is no net fat storage while in a caloric deficit regardless of your macro split, and b) de novo lipogenesis (carbs being converted to/stored as fat) is a process that almost never happens in the human body because it's inefficient and metabolically 'expensive'.
And yes - protein is as insulogenic as carbs are. And insulin is not the devil ketovangelists make it out to be, either.10 -
When carbs go really bad...
9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
You just need better cakeJanetBiard wrote: »Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I can’t think of a chemical I’ve ever put in a came either.
You know, it's interesting but true that these kinds of posts seem to assume that everyone eats tons of packaged cakes or some such (although read the label if you want to know). If I have cake (which isn't that often because I don't enjoy making it and pie is better anyways), it will be homemade (not by me, normally) or from a bakery that uses stuff like eggs, butter, sugar, flour. I mean, like everything else those are made up of chemicals, but I suspect that's not what OP meant.
I think part of this is the desire to believe that it's these mysterious chemicals that made you fat and not simply overeating (which some people hate admitting to).
Why fight? She's ceding you the cake! 2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
You just need better cakeJanetBiard wrote: »Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I can’t think of a chemical I’ve ever put in a came either.
You know, it's interesting but true that these kinds of posts seem to assume that everyone eats tons of packaged cakes or some such (although read the label if you want to know). If I have cake (which isn't that often because I don't enjoy making it and pie is better anyways), it will be homemade (not by me, normally) or from a bakery that uses stuff like eggs, butter, sugar, flour. I mean, like everything else those are made up of chemicals, but I suspect that's not what OP meant.
I think part of this is the desire to believe that it's these mysterious chemicals that made you fat and not simply overeating (which some people hate admitting to).
Why fight? She's ceding you the cake!
Splitting hares or there is more than one way to skin a cat? Lol2 -
JanetBiard wrote: »I know that I am going to be shot down in flames for saying this but I have become increasingly fed up by the people posting on MFP that there are no such things as bad carbs. This is really poor advice. The theory that as long as you maintain a calorie deficit you will lose weight may be true but it is appalling advice. On this basis you are suggesting that a diet of only cake and cookies is as valid as one full of vegetables, and as likely to lead to weight loss. That is simply wrong. On the cake diet I would feel dreadful, and I am setting myself up for failure as I am unlikely to feel satisfied with the portions of cake I can eat to stay in deficit.
Learning how to eat a nutritionally sound diet which is satisfying, energising and likely to stop me getting diabetes is part of the journey that people need to be on if they want to lose weight permanently. You can all call this woo and tell me the problem with cake is not the carbs it is the fat but really? Eating highly processed carbs with no fibre, lots of added sugars and god knows what chemicals are simply not a help if you are trying to lose weight.
I posted this hypothetical question in another thread and none of the "clean eaters" seemed to want to take it on. I'll repost it here:
Three people are placed on an island. One gets only unlimited broccoli and carrots. One gets only unlimited beans and peas. One gets only unlimited Big Macs. All three get unlimited water. Who lives the longest?
Will it be one of the two on those delicious, oh so nutritious, healthy, good for you, all-natural diets, or the one eating that horrible, toxic, disgusting, "nutritionally empty" non-food substance?
(Remember - we're not talking opinions, woo and fearmongering here. We're talking nutritional facts.)
That's easy, you kill the other two and then get big macs, beans, peas, broccoli, and carrots and have lived the longest. Such a stupid question.5 -
Yeah but what foods are going to have these undiscovered nutrients? Fruits, veggies, meats, nuts and seeds or cakes, cookies, twinkies, snickers, doritos, and soda?TheDevastator wrote: »
Sorry that was a run-on sentence. I've been up all night. I was testing how long you could hold your breath.TheDevastator wrote: »I'd say there are bad foods because it's almost impossible just getting all the micro-nutrients with the top foods and supplements in each micro-nutrient category let alone nutrient poor foods or foods high in omega 6s that will throw your omega 6s to omega 3s ratio out of balance.
Can anyone parse this sentence?
Or tell me what a ‘top food’ is?
Or how the human race has survived if micro-nutrients are so darn impossible to get?
Top foods as in each micro-nutrient.
The human race can survive without 100% of their daily amounts of micro-nutrients. They just don't have optimal health or can get diseases if going without a certain one for too long. I also didn't say they were impossible to get. Getting all of them in a day is impossible without supplementation or even a week can be hard.
Not on topic for this thread, really, but: It's worse than that. I'd lay money that there are beneficial (perhaps even essential) nutrients that science hasn't discovered yet. (It's discovered bunches of them during my 62-year lifespan.) You can't track them, you can't knowingly supplement them, but you'll be healthier if you eat them. They've been in food all along.
1 -
TheDevastator wrote: »
Yeah but what foods are going to have these undiscovered nutrients? Fruits, veggies, meats, nuts and seeds or cakes, cookies, twinkies, snickers, doritos, and soda?TheDevastator wrote: »
Sorry that was a run-on sentence. I've been up all night. I was testing how long you could hold your breath.TheDevastator wrote: »I'd say there are bad foods because it's almost impossible just getting all the micro-nutrients with the top foods and supplements in each micro-nutrient category let alone nutrient poor foods or foods high in omega 6s that will throw your omega 6s to omega 3s ratio out of balance.
Can anyone parse this sentence?
Or tell me what a ‘top food’ is?
Or how the human race has survived if micro-nutrients are so darn impossible to get?
Top foods as in each micro-nutrient.
The human race can survive without 100% of their daily amounts of micro-nutrients. They just don't have optimal health or can get diseases if going without a certain one for too long. I also didn't say they were impossible to get. Getting all of them in a day is impossible without supplementation or even a week can be hard.
Not on topic for this thread, really, but: It's worse than that. I'd lay money that there are beneficial (perhaps even essential) nutrients that science hasn't discovered yet. (It's discovered bunches of them during my 62-year lifespan.) You can't track them, you can't knowingly supplement them, but you'll be healthier if you eat them. They've been in food all along.
That's what makes it worse. I'd go with foods humans have been eating for millennia, myself, as being evolution-tested, but who knows. Very unlikely to be in supplements, though, since those are typically processed to minimize optional ingredients. 0 -
When do I know that my nutritional needs are met, is it when following my government's guidelines? Isn't the nutritional needs more on a individual basis where certain people need more of a single nutrient than others?These ridiculous arguments always begin with the false premise that you can only eat 100% "clean", or exist entirely upon calorically-dense, low-nutrition foods. Completely ignoring any possibility that there could be a middle ground where one applies a little common sense and eats a reasonably balanced, nutritious diet with room for treats.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
To quote Eric Helms, "Once our nutritional needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
1
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
- 427 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