Good or Bad Food?
Replies
-
rheddmobile wrote: »
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Not in my experience, as plenty of cakes have as much fat, or nearly as much fat, as carbs. For example, a piece of Portillo's chocolate cake (just because it is easy to find the nutrition information) has 329 cals from fat, and 344 from carbs. Pretty close. That's consistent with the kind of breakdown I see in dessert type items I make at home, for the most part (although there are exceptions that are disproportionately fat or carb). Of course, if you buy these at the grocery store it is sometimes the case that they are lower fat to try and lower cals, but usually those are all that tasty by comparison.
I otherwise agree with your point, but it is a personal mission to stop people from stereotyping most high fat dessert foods as simply "carbs"--too often they (although not you, of course) go on to claim that carbs are therefore the problem in everyone's diet and are unhealthy and the devil, blah, blah.
Anyway, great post, I just had to be nitpicky since it's my hobby horse.7 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.
It's an opinion. Not scripture. Cake has less health benefits than walnuts.
Why would this matter? Are you planning on eating only one or only the other? You point is a strawman. Nobody eats only cake or only walnuts. The point, that you are ignoring, is it's not helpful to look at foods in isolation and judge them good or bad. It depends on the overall context of a total diet.
You keep identifying it as an opinion but most mature adults are able to vary their opinions in the light of new facts. Having trouble moderating an individual food might make that food less healthy for you. But that doesn't make it an unhealthy food by definition.14 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
What does that have to do with which one has more calories? (Anyway, that's going to depend on the amount of each you consume.)
You do realize that it's possible to log in MFP and ALSO focus on eating a healthful diet, right? Many of us here are nutrition nerds and are very into eating nutritionally-dense foods and a well-rounded, balanced diet for the most part, but also realize that calories are what determine weight gain, loss, or maintenance.1 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I wish I was the same
. I would rather have a problem moderating a "sometimes" food than a pantry food.
I don't eat cake often because it's not an "often" food, but when I do, a slice is more than enough. Walnuts (or any nuts, really), on the other hand, are dangerous to my weight management because a handful is never enough. I would need to eat 2-3 times the calories of a slice of cake worth of nuts to be satisfied.
Exactly this. This is exactly what I'm saying
How is this what you are saying? It seems quite different. Perhaps you aren't explaining yourself well and could elaborate.5 -
If a person was close to starving to death, which would be good between cake and walnuts? Probably cake - it will be far easier to put in a lot of calories in a short time with less digestive issues.
I point this out because I would say good and bad do not exist on their own, only in a context, relative to a goal.
Having an app tell you what food is good or bad is having the app tell you what your values and goals are. I prefer to determine those for myself, and figure out what metrics bring me closer or further away from that.10 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
If you’re trying to lose weight and you eat a boatload of walnuts every day you are probably gonna have a problem staying within your calorie limit. On the other hand, you can eat literally nothing but cake and still lose weight, provided you’re eating at a caloric deficit. Some researcher literally did this with Twinkies just to prove a point.
There are valid reasons not to eat nothing but Twinkies - such as scurvy - but weight loss doesn’t require the eating of only “healthy” foods.
Heck, health itself doesn’t require eating nothing but “healthy” food! When I run a race, I eat sports jellies made of nothing but sugar and binding ingredients to keep my blood glucose up. That is healthy for me at that moment, even though it’s ultra processed and 100% carbs. If you want to determine the true health factors of what you eat, there are no shortcuts. You have to learn what your body needs, when, and why, and use your brain, instead of listening to some guru who gets paid to give one-size-fits-all advice. If I need a nice dose of omega 3s walnuts might be a great choice. If I have already eaten half an avocado and a bunch of almonds and I only have 25 calories left in my budget for the day, they might be a foolish choice and green veggies might make me feel fuller while staying in my calories. If I just ran a half marathon I for sure don’t want to eat flipping walnuts, I want some carbs.
I don't think cake is good for you. I think walnuts are better. That's all
You are welcome to your own opinions, but you don’t get your own set of facts. Speaking of opinions, one of mine is that ignoring reality and insisting on your own set of facts even after you’ve been shown to be mistaken isn’t a good way to live.
Cake is fine for many people in many circumstances. Walnuts can actually be deadly to people with nut allergies. One is not always good for you and the other is not always bad for you or vice versa. But, you know, feel free to keep believing whatever you decided about the world before you got the facts, and let us know how that works out. So far, it seems to have caused you to stop using the database because reality offends you.10 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
You are. 🤷🏼♀️8 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
Does that mean you think all the many possible individual components of cake aren't good for you? Eggs or flour perhaps not good for you in any circumstances?
How about if you had walnut cake?
Or is it because when combined you think those components somehow lose their nutritional value? Fruit (or walnuts) good for you but not when in a cake?
Really not following how your opinion works in the real world.
BTW - I'm not a huge fan or consumer of cakes but my best cake experience was a long way into a 130 mile ride and a couple of pieces of homemade cake really hit the spot and were perfect cycling fuel as well as being enjoyable. Walnuts really wouldn't have been superior in any way in those circumstances (taste, enjoyment, nutrition).6 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I didn't click "disagree" on your post, partly because I womanned up and explained why I disagree, in an "essay".
I did that because this thread was originated by someone who wondered why MFP didn't have some kind of good foods/bad foods categorization, and in that sense (per the terms of service) we're supposed to keep focus on the point of the question, ideally not get sidetracked into branches off from that point.
Cake is not the same as walnuts. It has dramatically different nutritional properties, and different calories. In your initial post on this thread, you said:BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
I do disagree with that (for reasons I said), but I also find it very odd that you "wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food" but "quit logging . . . because cake was less calories than walnuts".
Logging is exactly the thing that helps many of us understand the "health factors of each food", specifically:
1. Which foods are good sources of particular nutrients (because foods vary widely, even among (heh) "good" ones),
2. How those nutrients fit into reasonable nutritional goals (because we have macronutrient and micronutrients goals in the logging process, and we can even customize those goals if we want to, though the default goals are pretty good for most people), not to mention
3. How many calories it will "cost" us to get those nutrients from particular foods in reasonable, satisfying portions.
Think of calories as your budget, and nutrients as things like rent, utilities, going out to a movie, etc. The question is how to arrange your calorie budget to get good nutrition, and - ideally - enjoy life at the same time. Cake is usually a "discretionary income" kind of food: We can buy some with our leftover calories, after the rent (macronutrients) and utilities (micronutrients) are paid for . . . unless we'd prefer some walnuts to cake.
To put it more briefly, it sounds like you quit the very process that is designed to answer your questions about health and food, because it was somehow distressing to you to learn that "cake was less calories than walnuts".
Obviously, it's fine for you to do whatever you like for any reason, but that seems odd to me.
And my "essay" was trying - quite imperfectly, it appears - to speak to the originator of the thread about how logging is a useful tool that can help us understand the relationships among food choice, nutrition, and calories, and better balance them to meet our personal goals, gustatory as well as nutritional.
I don't feel any animosity toward you, or your opinions. On the contrary, I wish you success in both weight management & health. :flowerforyou:18 -
I can have my cake and eat walnuts it, too. Best of both worlds. Everything in moderation. No demonizing needed.7
-
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I didn't click "disagree" on your post, partly because I womanned up and explained why I disagree, in an "essay". I did that because this thread was originated by someone who wondered why MFP didn't have some kind of good foods/bad foods categorization, and in that sense (per the terms of service) we're supposed to keep focus on the point of the question, ideally not get sidetracked into branches off from that point.
Cake is not the same as walnuts. It has dramatically different nutritional properties, and different calories. In your initial post on this thread, you said:BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
I do disagree with that (for reasons I said), but I also find it very odd that you "wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food" but "quit logging . . . because cake was less calories than walnuts".
Logging is exactly the thing that helps many of us understand the "health factors of each food", specifically:
1. Which foods are good sources of particular nutrients (because foods vary widely, even among (heh) "good" ones),
2. How those nutrients fit into reasonable nutritional goals (because we have macronutrient and micronutrients goals in the logging process, and we can even customize those goals if we want to, though the default goals are pretty good for most people), not to mention
3. How many calories it will "cost" us to get those nutrients from particular foods in reasonable, satisfying portions.
Think of calories as your budget, and nutrients as things like rent, utilities, going out to a movie, etc. The question is how to arrange your calorie budget to get good nutrition, and - ideally - enjoy life at the same time. Cake is usually a "discretionary income" kind of food: We can buy some with our leftover calories, after the rent (macronutrients) and utilities (micronutrients) are paid for . . . unless we'd prefer some walnuts to cake.
To put it more briefly, it sounds like you quit the very process that is designed to answer your questions about health and food, because it was somehow distressing to you to learn that "cake was less calories than walnuts".
Obviously, it's fine for you to do whatever you like for any reason, but that seems odd to me.
And my "essay" was trying - quite imperfectly, it appears - to speak to the originator of the thread about how logging is a useful tool that can help us understand the relationships among food choice, nutrition, and calories, and better balance them to meet our personal goals, gustatory as well as nutritional.
I don't feel any animosity toward you, or your opinions. On the contrary, I wish you success in both weight management & health. :flowerforyou:
Beautiful post (essay, if you will ).
4 -
Damn! I don't want any cake or walnuts or cake with walnuts or walnuts with cake. Its too much trouble.
4 -
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad".
^^^This...
1 -
Hello, I am new to the app and was wondering how can I see easily if a good is good or bad for you?
In other apps, it is visible by placing foods in a green/yellow/red zone for example.
Thanks
Calling food "good" or "bad" is not really a helpful way to categorize food. It all depends on what ones overall diet consists of over time. A chocolate bar within an overall diet of nutritious foods is not bad unless there is a specific health issue like diabetes that makes is bad. Eating only chocolate bars or predominantly chocolate bars would be bad as would eating only say broccoli and nothing else. What would make is bad in those extreme situations would be different, but neither would be good eating.5 -
After all this, I think I'll have some coffee cake with walnuts after lunch. Can I get a green light icon for that in my diary?8
-
-
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.
It's an opinion. Not scripture. Cake has less health benefits than walnuts.
Why would this matter? Are you planning on eating only one or only the other? You point is a strawman. Nobody eats only cake or only walnuts. The point, that you are ignoring, is it's not helpful to look at foods in isolation and judge them good or bad. It depends on the overall context of a total diet.
You keep identifying it as an opinion but most mature adults are able to vary their opinions in the light of new facts. Having trouble moderating an individual food might make that food less healthy for you. But that doesn't make it an unhealthy food by definition.
Strawman can actually work though. If you were in imminent danger of starving to death which would you eat? A cake that has a high amount of sugar that can be quickly converted to energy inside your body or would you take your chance with walnuts and hope you have time? In this far-fetched scenario cake stands a better chance of saving your life which, in my book, makes it much healthier than the walnuts.
Some people get so hung up on nutritional quality they forget that we need calories to live and the first and most healthy thing we do is eat calories... any calories. Nutrients are now and will always be secondary to the basic need for calories. If someone is consistently undereating because they eat so much low calorie vegetables that it keeps them from eating enough total calories that is unhealthy regardless of how many nutrients they are consuming. This is less far-fetched because we have seen people come through here that were doing that exact thing. I remember one young woman wanted a burger from a fast food joint and I told her it was healthier to eat it than continue undernourishing herself.
I have always thought it helpful to view nutrition like a well that you fill. It has limited capacity so if you keep stuffing more nutrients in there many/most of them will just overflow into your urine. This is why I eat both nutrient dense food and treats. I have lost well over 200 pounds eating pizza nearly weekly. My health has improved dramatically and I never felt deprived pizza for me is quite healthy... in context. I should mention that pizza does have a range of nutrients so it should not be demonized anyway but people do it.11 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.
It's an opinion. Not scripture. Cake has less health benefits than walnuts.
Why would this matter? Are you planning on eating only one or only the other? You point is a strawman. Nobody eats only cake or only walnuts. The point, that you are ignoring, is it's not helpful to look at foods in isolation and judge them good or bad. It depends on the overall context of a total diet.
You keep identifying it as an opinion but most mature adults are able to vary their opinions in the light of new facts. Having trouble moderating an individual food might make that food less healthy for you. But that doesn't make it an unhealthy food by definition.
Some people get so hung up on nutritional quality they forget that we need calories to live and the first and most healthy thing we do is eat calories... any calories. Nutrients are now and will always be secondary to the basic need for calories. If someone is consistently undereating because they eat so much low calorie vegetables that it keeps them from eating enough total calories that is unhealthy regardless of how many nutrients they are consuming. This is less far-fetched because we have seen people come through here that were doing that exact thing.
It isn't remotely far-fetched. Countless threads are started by people who are under their calorie goal and simply can't bring themselves to eat more broccoli, but fear ruining their "health" if they eat a cheeseburger (or a piece of cake ). 9 -
I think the original post has been answered, but to chime in. I don't believe MFP is geared toward nutrition or health, from what I've seen of the free version it is just about calories and macros - however you use that information is up to you.
@BuffaloChixSalad, don't take these forums and any seeming push-back seriously. Everyone communicates differently and written communication has it's challenges from both a writer and reader perspective. I'm always impressed with certain user's essays because it just shows they put in a lot of effort to be clear and precise. I am more of a cognitive shortcut and cut to the chase type person so "good" or "bad" works fine for me even if it isn't 100% accurate in every scenario.
It was only an opinion. How I view food. What's in my mind. I never thought it would have gotten so heated. I never said I had facts. Never said that I am a nutritionist or macro expert. Solely my view.4 -
One discovery I recently made (and admittedly, I can be a little slow on the uptake about these things) is that, in the free version under "reports", you can see a graph showing your history of meeting the RDA of a handful of micronutrients. I feel like this is an easy, no stress way of getting a feel for whether you're doing a good job meeting your nutritional needs at a glance and can afford that piece of cake (sorry- in my house, it always comes down to the cake ). 4
-
1. If you’re eating cake that has the same or fewer calories than a serving of walnuts, I’m very sorry because that’s a sad cake. My raspberry white chocolate truffle cake was 1300 calories a slice. And healthy cause raspberries.
2. Mfp DOES give you indications on the quality of the food you’re logging - this food is high in protein, this food has a lot of sugar, etc. In fact, MFP congratulated me for meeting my fiber goal when I logged m&m’s and also praised my frosted chocolate brownie that was low in saturated fat. YMMV.
7 -
I think the original post has been answered, but to chime in. I don't believe MFP is geared toward nutrition or health, from what I've seen of the free version it is just about calories and macros - however you use that information is up to you.
I think there are better sites if your main interest is in tracking nutrients, but I don't think it's at all true that MFP is just about calories and macros. First, of course, you can choose 2 other things to look at on your main page, and if you want to look at many other nutrients, they are also available.
More usefully, when you log a food, you can look at lots of information about it, such as fiber, vitamins, iron, potassium, etc.
Personally, I found it much more helpful to educate myself on nutrition separately, rather than thinking that MFP could tell me whether a food is "good" or "bad," but I did find that logging caused me to look at the nutrient contents of some foods (beyond what I already knew) and so I learned more from doing so.5 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I think the original post has been answered, but to chime in. I don't believe MFP is geared toward nutrition or health, from what I've seen of the free version it is just about calories and macros - however you use that information is up to you.
@BuffaloChixSalad, don't take these forums and any seeming push-back seriously. Everyone communicates differently and written communication has it's challenges from both a writer and reader perspective. I'm always impressed with certain user's essays because it just shows they put in a lot of effort to be clear and precise. I am more of a cognitive shortcut and cut to the chase type person so "good" or "bad" works fine for me even if it isn't 100% accurate in every scenario.
It was only an opinion. How I view food. What's in my mind. I never thought it would have gotten so heated. I never said I had facts. Never said that I am a nutritionist or macro expert. Solely my view.
Well, to clarify, you said:BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
This sounds as if you are saying that you think that it is "ridiculous" that cake (in some amount, for some kind of cake) is fewer cals than walnuts (in some amount). I find this puzzling. Are you actually disputing the number of calories in these items? If not, what is ridiculous about it?
You also said: "I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food." Do you really think you lack knowledge about that? (You seem pretty sure about walnuts vs. cake, and personally I agree that the nutrient content of walnuts are usually more to be desired in my day than cake. That doesn't mean I never eat cake, although I'm not really a big fan of cake so I'm more likely to use my discretionary calories in some other way, but it does mean that I'd be more concerned about adding in walnuts (or some other nut or seed) into my day on a normal day.)
However, like I said before, caring about calories and caring about nutrition is not mutually exclusive, and, of course, there are numerous ways to learn about the nutrient content of foods, including by using MFP, if that is something of interest to you. You may have thought you should always eat the lowest cal foods (which would include neither cake nor walnuts), but of course that is not something MFP tells you, and is not what I would consider a reasonable approach to logging.4 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »In fact, MFP congratulated me for meeting my fiber goal when I logged m&m’s
m&ms have fiber? Guess I deserve a little pat on the back, then 0 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
If you’re trying to lose weight and you eat a boatload of walnuts every day you are probably gonna have a problem staying within your calorie limit. On the other hand, you can eat literally nothing but cake and still lose weight, provided you’re eating at a caloric deficit. Some researcher literally did this with Twinkies just to prove a point.
There are valid reasons not to eat nothing but Twinkies - such as scurvy - but weight loss doesn’t require the eating of only “healthy” foods.
Heck, health itself doesn’t require eating nothing but “healthy” food! When I run a race, I eat sports jellies made of nothing but sugar and binding ingredients to keep my blood glucose up. That is healthy for me at that moment, even though it’s ultra processed and 100% carbs. If you want to determine the true health factors of what you eat, there are no shortcuts. You have to learn what your body needs, when, and why, and use your brain, instead of listening to some guru who gets paid to give one-size-fits-all advice. If I need a nice dose of omega 3s walnuts might be a great choice. If I have already eaten half an avocado and a bunch of almonds and I only have 25 calories left in my budget for the day, they might be a foolish choice and green veggies might make me feel fuller while staying in my calories. If I just ran a half marathon I for sure don’t want to eat flipping walnuts, I want some carbs.
I don't think cake is good for you. I think walnuts are better. That's all
What you're missing is that the calories have nothing to do with nutritional value and nutrients in a particular food. Walnuts are a very nutritious food...but they are largely comprised of dietary fat and thus high calorie and could be have a higher calorie content than a piece of cake depending on the size of the cake and portion of walnuts eaten. I don't know why that fact (not opinion) would make you stop logging.6 -
I'm just going to point out that carrot cake has walnuts in it.7
-
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
How do you figure cake is being considered the same as walnuts? I doubt many would consider cake the be an optimally nutritious food...but that has zero to do with calories. Your convoluting calories with nutrition...they aren't the same thing. Calories are just a unit of measure like an inch or mile or watt or whatever.4 -
I think the original post has been answered, but to chime in. I don't believe MFP is geared toward nutrition or health, from what I've seen of the free version it is just about calories and macros - however you use that information is up to you.
@BuffaloChixSalad, don't take these forums and any seeming push-back seriously. Everyone communicates differently and written communication has it's challenges from both a writer and reader perspective. I'm always impressed with certain user's essays because it just shows they put in a lot of effort to be clear and precise. I am more of a cognitive shortcut and cut to the chase type person so "good" or "bad" works fine for me even if it isn't 100% accurate in every scenario.
MFP will tell you if something is, for example, high in sugar...or high in saturated fat, etc.
I eat a pretty nutritious diet overall because health, nutrition, and fitness are important to me. This morning I had a spinach and mushroom egg omelette for breakfast. I had grilled chicken thighs, quinoa, and steamed asparagus for lunch. For dinner we're having a baked salmon with roasted garlic. For desert I'm going to have one of my wife's homemade chocolate chip cookies...so, does that wipe out my nutrition for the day and somehow make my day unhealthy?6 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I think the original post has been answered, but to chime in. I don't believe MFP is geared toward nutrition or health, from what I've seen of the free version it is just about calories and macros - however you use that information is up to you.
@BuffaloChixSalad, don't take these forums and any seeming push-back seriously. Everyone communicates differently and written communication has it's challenges from both a writer and reader perspective. I'm always impressed with certain user's essays because it just shows they put in a lot of effort to be clear and precise. I am more of a cognitive shortcut and cut to the chase type person so "good" or "bad" works fine for me even if it isn't 100% accurate in every scenario.
It was only an opinion. How I view food. What's in my mind. I never thought it would have gotten so heated. I never said I had facts. Never said that I am a nutritionist or macro expert. Solely my view.
Would you be open to altering your opinion if you found out it was mis-informed....?9 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I think the original post has been answered, but to chime in. I don't believe MFP is geared toward nutrition or health, from what I've seen of the free version it is just about calories and macros - however you use that information is up to you.
@BuffaloChixSalad, don't take these forums and any seeming push-back seriously. Everyone communicates differently and written communication has it's challenges from both a writer and reader perspective. I'm always impressed with certain user's essays because it just shows they put in a lot of effort to be clear and precise. I am more of a cognitive shortcut and cut to the chase type person so "good" or "bad" works fine for me even if it isn't 100% accurate in every scenario.
It was only an opinion. How I view food. What's in my mind. I never thought it would have gotten so heated. I never said I had facts. Never said that I am a nutritionist or macro expert. Solely my view.
I don't think the people disagreeing with you are that heated. Maybe all the exposed backs in the thread come off as looking to cool off.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions