Calorie Counter

Message Boards Food and Nutrition
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

What are some of your unpopular opinions about food?

1116117119121122130

Replies

  • RelCanonicalRelCanonical Member Posts: 3,778 Member Member Posts: 3,778 Member
    the idea of "everything in moderation" is really a marketing ploy.

    Oooh, this is a good one, it riled me a little. That's when you know it's unpopular.
  • pancakerunnerpancakerunner Member Posts: 3,782 Member Member Posts: 3,782 Member
    the idea of "everything in moderation" is really a marketing ploy.

    Oooh, this is a good one, it riled me a little. That's when you know it's unpopular.

    think about it... the companies and industries that push the notion of "everything in moderation," "calories in vs. calories out," "just exercise more" are the same ones profiting off of it.
  • alexmosealexmose Member Posts: 608 Member Member Posts: 608 Member
    the idea of "everything in moderation" is really a marketing ploy.

    Oooh, this is a good one, it riled me a little. That's when you know it's unpopular.

    think about it... the companies and industries that push the notion of "everything in moderation," "calories in vs. calories out," "just exercise more" are the same ones profiting off of it.

    My personal motto is ‘everything in moderation....including moderation!’
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,542 Member Member Posts: 5,542 Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."
  • pancakerunnerpancakerunner Member Posts: 3,782 Member Member Posts: 3,782 Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.
  • sardelsasardelsa Member Posts: 9,464 Member Member Posts: 9,464 Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    You mean like Halo Top (as per your other thread) :D
  • pancakerunnerpancakerunner Member Posts: 3,782 Member Member Posts: 3,782 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    You mean like Halo Top (as per your other thread) :D

    I'm no saint. :)
    edited June 18
  • sardelsasardelsa Member Posts: 9,464 Member Member Posts: 9,464 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    You mean like Halo Top (as per your other thread) :D

    I'm no saint! :D

    But if you enjoy it, it helps you reach your goals, the majority of your calories come from nutrient dense foods, why not?
  • pancakerunnerpancakerunner Member Posts: 3,782 Member Member Posts: 3,782 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    Without further explanation or details, just on the surface of it, I think that's very inaccurate. So tofu is going to add up, and kill me? Commercial cookies, with the same ingredients I'd use if I made them at home? Protein powder?

    Maybe daily doses of transfats, or something like that, but I'd appreciate it if you could give examples of what you mean by "just a bit" and "processed foods", something specific as to context and dose so I can understand how it's going to "add up" and threaten health.

    TIA.

    ETA: While you're at it, a specific example or two of this (below) would be helpful and educational for me, too.
    the idea of "everything in moderation" is really a marketing ploy.

    Regarding my initial point, that is just my inner conspiracy-theorist. Put the pieces together and it makes sense, though. The nutritionists and medical experts promoting this idea are funded by the food, agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. Of course eating everything in moderation is okay, because if it wasn't, who would be buying the processed snacks? By "processed" I generally mean foods that are made with industrial seed oils, wheat and sugar.

    Per my second point, I am definitely not an expert on the subject. BUT it's about the cumulative effect of repetitive glycation and insulin production and it's negative influence on metabolic and hormonal health. Another thing to note is the impact of polyunsaturated fats (seed oils) on your cells' phospholipid bilayer. It takes 2+ years to get these out of your system. Repeated exposure to these inflammatory foods (moderation!) results in chronic inflammation and less-than-optimal health.

    Some more on PUFA and inflammation.
    Dr. Anthony Guston is a great resource on industrial seed oils and linoleic acid/inflammation. As is Tucker Goodrich. http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/

    I encourage you to check out Nora Gedguadas' work. She really focuses on a primal diet for optimal health.

    Some relevant blogs:
    Dr. Cate Shanahan is another wealth of knowledge!
    https://drcate.com/

    This is super out there, but really good points on the world of dietetics.
    edited June 18
  • pancakerunnerpancakerunner Member Posts: 3,782 Member Member Posts: 3,782 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    Without further explanation or details, just on the surface of it, I think that's very inaccurate. So tofu is going to add up, and kill me? Commercial cookies, with the same ingredients I'd use if I made them at home? Protein powder?

    Maybe daily doses of transfats, or something like that, but I'd appreciate it if you could give examples of what you mean by "just a bit" and "processed foods", something specific as to context and dose so I can understand how it's going to "add up" and threaten health.

    TIA.

    ETA: While you're at it, a specific example or two of this (below) would be helpful and educational for me, too.
    the idea of "everything in moderation" is really a marketing ploy.

    Regarding my initial point, that is just my inner conspiracy-theorist. Put the pieces together and it makes sense, though. The nutritionists and medical experts promoting this idea are funded by the food, agricultural and pharmaceutical industries. Of course eating everything in moderation is okay, because if it wasn't, who would be buying the processed snacks? By "processed" I generally mean foods that are made with industrial seed oils, wheat and sugar.

    Per my second point, I am definitely not an expert on the subject. BUT it's about the cumulative effect of repetitive glycation and insulin production and it's negative influence on metabolic and hormonal health. Another thing to note is the impact of polyunsaturated fats (seed oils) on your cells' phospholipid bilayer. It takes 2+ years to get these out of your system. Repeated exposure to these inflammatory foods (moderation!) results in chronic inflammation and less-than-optimal health.

    Some more on PUFA and inflammation.
    Dr. Anthony Guston is a great resource on industrial seed oils and linoleic acid/inflammation. As is Tucker Goodrich. http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/

    I encourage you to check out Nora Gedguadas' work. She really focuses on a primal diet for optimal health.

    Some relevant blogs:
    Dr. Cate Shanahan is another wealth of knowledge!
    https://drcate.com/

    This is super out there, but really good points on the world of dietetics.

    I appreciate your taking the time to share sources, and I respect that you do have a considered basis for your opinion.

    For my part, I think it's a big leap from "it's good to consider Omega-3 to Omega-6 balance" (which I think is true) or even "people in developed countries overconsume O-6s to their detriment" (probably true, with the observation that oil overconsumption in general may not be ideal) to "plant oils are poison" and another big leap from there to the idea that "for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up."

    I didn't read all of every word, but I did read, and try to be fair. It was challenging at times, because some of the arguments are outrageous, frankly. That whole deal about oils as insecticide is one, for example. Pretty much any oil (or soap) has an insecticidal effect: Oils disrupt insects' essential gas exchange by coating them with oil (they don't breathe like we do, basically, so it disrupts their equivalent). It's primarily a physical effect, not a biochemical one. As coatings on the plant surface, oils disrupt insect feeding. That's also a physical effect. (Organic farming uses oils in these ways.)

    Do some oils have some biochemical effects on some insects? I'm sure. But I'm not an insect. Bringing that sort of reasoning into an argument is alarmist, not nuanced, and IMO shows a shaky grip on the science (not sorting wheat from chaff). "Did you know it's used in (dangerous or revolting thing X)" is common scare-tactic advocacy. (It makes me think of http://dhmo.org/, frankly.)

    There's some very mixed evidence, IMU, that overheated oils can be a problem for humans, and some other things of that "various studies disagree" nature, not persuasive to me. I'm generally in favor of preferring foods that humans have been eating for centuries or millennia, and the processed seed oils are the new kids on the block in that sense. I can see some reason for caution, in science and practice.

    There's (what I'd consider to be) truth in some of the points in those sites, but scattershot among things that are IMO exaggerated or inaccurate.

    I respect your right to make those conceptual leaps, but I'm not going along all the way on those particular lily-pads, personally.

    Peace and good wishes - sincerely.

    I appreciate this. And I also want to say that everybody has their own definition of what “optimal healthcare” really is. We all just need to do our part to educate ourselves, be civil to others, and live a life of impact — whatever that may be.
  • quiksylver296quiksylver296 Member Posts: 26,949 Member Member Posts: 26,949 Member
    Mint gum is gross. Other mint things, like...mints, are tolerable. Mint chocolate things are good. The complicated nature of mint.

    Spearmint is gross. Peppermint is good.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,542 Member Member Posts: 5,542 Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    I feel like we are having this same argument in two threads, but this is a bizarre claim.

    There are processed foods I eat that I consider extra healthy. Cottage cheese is one -- I eat it because I love it, but it certainly helps my protein totals. Dried beans and frozen spinach (not in the summer for the latter) are others. Canned tomatoes (out of season tomatoes have no taste, IMO). But setting that aside, and agreeing that one of the benefits of these kinds of foods is time-saving, this was my experience losing weight:

    (1) Not calorie counting and simply cutting way down on added fat and starch portions -- losing fast.

    (2) Logging at MFP and realizing I was accidentally eating 1000 cals/day. Deciding that for health and sustainability I'd loosen up my diet some. The first thing I did was start adding feta (I do love it) to my omelets, a but more olive oil (processed!) to my veg when cooking, and olives and feta and seeds (not all at the same time) to my salads. I also decided to skip boneless, skinless chicken breast in favor of roasting them skin on, bone in. (The latter is a switch from more to less processed, btw).

    Despite adding more processed foods, I lost properly, and I don't believe that in moderation any of this caused poor health (my doctor would agree).

    I also do eat restaurant meals about once or twice a week now. The claim that that hurts my health doesn't make much sense (what I eat isn't that different than what one could make at home, although of course higher cal on average than what I tend to cook).
    edited June 19
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,542 Member Member Posts: 5,542 Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I would call how you eat -- as described on MFP -- moderation.

    So I guess it's just a difference in how we understand the term.

    My definition is that eating something in moderation means eating it such that it fits into a calorie appropriate diet (whether one counts or not, I usually don't), and you still have sufficient room for good nutrition in the course of a day or week.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,542 Member Member Posts: 5,542 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    Everything in moderation lol........ my moderation is not your moderation and no two moderations are the same.

    Curious if you would disagree with this: "if it's not consistent with a calorie appropriate and overall healthy diet with sufficient nutrients, then it's not moderation unless we are talking a rare occasion."

    I would disagree. This is not moderation. This is back to the only thing that works, calories counting.
    Some people have a smear of peanut butter on their toast and feel satisfied. They are moderating their calories intake by that. I cant do that. Thats why no two moderations are the same.

    I agree that calorie counting is what works for WEIGHT LOSS. But optimal health goes so much further. This is where the idea of "everything in moderation" needs to be thrown out... for optimal health, even just a bit of processed foods will add up.

    You mean like Halo Top (as per your other thread) :D

    LOL

    And really, pancakerunner, this is kind of the source of my reaction. You go on and on about super processed kids foods (IMO) that I didn't even like as a kid and then lecture everyone on "processed foods" generally, as if they weren't totally varied and as if overall diet wasn't what mattered.

    I do agree to some extend about processed seed oils and omega 6 to 3 balance (omega 3s are a big thing for me and the only oils I use are olive, avocado, and coconut -- all processed, as is butter). When I log it's at Cron to see nutrients, and I especially care about fiber (which I get only from natural sources), potassium, and omega 3, but like to hit all my nutrients when logging.

    So no, I don't think occasional processed foods inherently have some bad effect on health. I think most should focus on eating more veg and the like more than what they don't eat. If you are eating tons of pop tarts or a pint of Halo Top or what not a day, I'd say that's not really moderation (although the Halo Top is low cal, of course).

    Claiming one must eat 100% clean (and not treats in moderation, whatever "treats" means to you, to me it definitely includes good cheese) to be healthy is not supported by anything credible and likely makes things harder for many (unnecessarily so).
    edited June 19
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,542 Member Member Posts: 5,542 Member
    Mint gum is gross. Other mint things, like...mints, are tolerable. Mint chocolate things are good. The complicated nature of mint.

    Spearmint is gross. Peppermint is good.

    This is true.
Sign In or Register to comment.