We trashed the sodas, chips, cookies
Replies
-
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.
We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.
We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.
My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .
We are going strong.
A great move. Junk food is exactly that: "junk". If you are going to eat something, make it natural and healthy. Amazing how a couple of guys making a positive move to enhnace thier lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Don't believe any of the "IIFYM" losers. These are only people who are too weak to give up the crap and eat real food. Why would one eat crap when you can eat real. You guys made the right move. Good for you.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You want to talk performance or body composition? No one is pushing for anyone to eat only junk. There is an attempt, not always a perfect attempt, to try to make people aware that there is a middle path to nutrition that works, and works incredibly well.
ETA: This idea that foods are evil, or "bad" just doesn't fly when you dig into the facts. Again, no one is saying that people should eat nothing but potato chips, but if they make up 10% of your diet when you are getting sufficient protein and fats and covering your fiber and micronutrient needs, who cares? It doesn't matter. And nice personal attack by the way. You're in your late 50s, grow up.0 -
Don't believe any of the "IIFYM" losers.
Don't believe any losers at all. Believe the guys who can back up their claims with science, and have a track record of long-term success.0 -
They still want to put chemicals in their bodies.
News flash: it's impossible to put anything that isn't a chemical into your body.0 -
What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.
If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?
"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.
You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.
I don't see how eating a pop tart, which typically has 13-16g of sugars, translates into "getting mass amounts of pure sugar". That's just asinine.
Yes I was exaggerating but a 200 calorie pop tart is not 200 calories of nutrition plain and simple. You are displacing real nutrients with those calories which is why they are "empty" calories. Sugar is not an essential nutrient. If someone is drinking sodas and eating pop tarts regularly then yes that is what I would consider mass amounts of sugar that is completely unnecessary and does nobody any good in reaching any real health goals, whether it is for internal health and well being or for trying to drop weight in a healthy way. And a lot of people actually do consume these things regularly and it really can lead to legitimate nutrient deficiencies regardless of how fortified their cereal and bread may be.0 -
Hey when you see the same old posters posting info to sell you the idea that junk food is good it contains macros I do wonder who is getting paid $$$$.
Same with the posts critical of diet soda. The same old posters appear right on cue with the same old gifs {yawn yawn} in what appears to be an attempt to discredit the poster, to me it is like a computer program has been activated, Hmmm
Then the critics appear with their opinon pieces, none of which is supported by peer reviewed science. Some of the comments are hostile and insulting to the OP but when reported to the mods they are not removed.
So I ask myself what is the Payoff.0 -
I think people harp way too much on macronutrients. They project the view that macros are all that matter, even when they know it's not true. They defend their junk food vehemently, even though they know that most of their diet is not junk. They seem to want us to believe we can't be happy or maintain a healthy weight without drinking soda or eating Pop Tarts. It's all so friggin' ridiculous. Junk food is just junk food. It's not necessary.
Totally nonsensical post. Macronutrients are in fact that important.
We want you not to think that you can't be happy unless you're eating Pop Tarts. We want you to realize you can be happy, and achieve your goals, even if you eat [insert any food you want here].
It's not about getting people to eat Pop Tarts. It's about getting people to understand that they can eat any foods they like and still achieve their goals.
Do you ask what their goals are before you tell them how to reach them?
Absolutely. However, no matter what your goals are in terms of fitness or health, macronutrient intake is critically important. Whether your foods are "clean" or "healthy" or "approved" or whatever is not important.
Agree. So are micronutrients.
They're important, but not nearly as important. It's very easy to consume the wrong macronutrients. Just look at how many overweight people there are: they're overweight because they consume improper amounts of macronutrients.
We don't have "micronutrient deficiency" rates of 30% or more. We do have obesity rates of 30% or more. Obesity comes from improper macronutrient intake.
If you want to pretend macronutrients don't matter that much, you're totally wrong. Obesity is literally caused by improper macronutrient intake.0 -
nevermind0
-
I used to try and cut out all the "junk" food, as well. But by reading these forums and learning that Poptarts and ice cream are fine, in moderation, and that there are no bad foods: this knowledge saved me from falling off the wagon this past year. We have to find a sustainable lifestyle that we can stick with and enjoy. For me that does NOT include one where I am deprived and hunting for ways to make birthday cakes out of vegetables.I think people harp way too much on macronutrients. They project the view that macros are all that matter, even when they know it's not true. They defend their junk food vehemently, even though they know that most of their diet is not junk. They seem to want us to believe we can't be happy or maintain a healthy weight without drinking soda or eating Pop Tarts. It's all so friggin' ridiculous. Junk food is just junk food. It's not necessary.
This study showing that “reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
This study which found “diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.”- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101
Results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html (links within)
Flexible dieting greater success rate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/117075500 -
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.
We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.
We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.
My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .
We are going strong.
A great move. Junk food is exactly that: "junk". If you are going to eat something, make it natural and healthy. Amazing how a couple of guys making a positive move to enhnace thier lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Don't believe any of the "IIFYM" losers. These are only people who are too weak to give up the crap and eat real food. Why would one eat crap when you can eat real. You guys made the right move. Good for you.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You want to talk performance or body composition? No one is pushing for anyone to eat only junk. There is an attempt, not always a perfect attempt, to try to make people aware that there is a middle path to nutrition that works, and works incredibly well.
Oh yes, I know what I'm talking about. I have no doubt that some attempt what you suggest. But read the posts in this thread without a preconceived idea. Read it objectively as if you are a newbie to the site and to healthy weight loss. There is a very clear push to eat junk food. And this thread is not the first or the last.
"Hey if giving those up makes it easier on you, then do what you gotta do, but you know you can still eat those things in moderation and lose weight." is the not prevailing message here.0 -
Double post, sorry, having a glitchy computer day.0
-
What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.
If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?
"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.
You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.
I don't see how eating a pop tart, which typically has 13-16g of sugars, translates into "getting mass amounts of pure sugar". That's just asinine.
Yes I was exaggerating but a 200 calorie pop tart is not 200 calories of nutrition plain and simple. You are displacing real nutrients with those calories which is why they are "empty" calories. Sugar is not an essential nutrient. If someone is drinking sodas and eating pop tarts regularly then yes that is what I would consider mass amounts of sugar that is completely unnecessary and does nobody any good in reaching any real health goals, whether it is for internal health and well being or for trying to drop weight in a healthy way. And a lot of people actually do consume these things regularly and it really can lead to legitimate nutrient deficiencies regardless of how fortified their cereal and bread may be.
Seriously, what is "empty" about this?
0 -
Hey when you see the same old posters posting info to sell you the idea that junk food is good it contains macros I do wonder who is getting paid $$$$.
Same with the posts critical of diet soda. The same old posters appear right on cue with the same old gifs {yawn yawn} in what appears to be an attempt to discredit the poster, to me it is like a computer program has been activated, Hmmm
Then the critics appear with their opinon pieces, none of which is supported by peer reviewed science. Some of the comments are hostile and insulting to the OP but when reported to the mods they are not removed.
So I ask myself what is the Payoff.
0 -
They're important, but not nearly as important. It's very easy to consume the wrong macronutrients. Just look at how many overweight people there are: they're overweight because they consume improper amounts of macronutrients.
Gonna have to disagree on this one. People gain weight because they eat too many calories, regardless of what their macro breakdown is.0 -
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.
We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.
We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.
My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .
We are going strong.
A great move. Junk food is exactly that: "junk". If you are going to eat something, make it natural and healthy. Amazing how a couple of guys making a positive move to enhnace thier lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Don't believe any of the "IIFYM" losers. These are only people who are too weak to give up the crap and eat real food. Why would one eat crap when you can eat real. You guys made the right move. Good for you.
Uhh. I don't think that IIFYM people advocate eating feces.0 -
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.
We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.
We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.
My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .
We are going strong.
A great move. Junk food is exactly that: "junk". If you are going to eat something, make it natural and healthy. Amazing how a couple of guys making a positive move to enhnace thier lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Don't believe any of the "IIFYM" losers. These are only people who are too weak to give up the crap and eat real food. Why would one eat crap when you can eat real. You guys made the right move. Good for you.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You want to talk performance or body composition? No one is pushing for anyone to eat only junk. There is an attempt, not always a perfect attempt, to try to make people aware that there is a middle path to nutrition that works, and works incredibly well.
Oh yes, I know what I'm talking about. I have no doubt that some attempt what you suggest. But read the posts in this thread without a preconceived idea. Read it objectively as if you are a newbie to the site and to healthy weight loss. There is a very clear push to eat junk food. And this thread is not the first or the last.
"Hey if giving those up makes it easier on you, then do what you gotta do, but you know you can still eat those things in moderation and lose weight." is the not prevailing message here.
That wasn't even in response to you. I stopped paying attention to your posts a long time ago.0 -
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.
We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.
We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.
My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .
We are going strong.
A great move. Junk food is exactly that: "junk". If you are going to eat something, make it natural and healthy. Amazing how a couple of guys making a positive move to enhnace thier lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Don't believe any of the "IIFYM" losers. These are only people who are too weak to give up the crap and eat real food. Why would one eat crap when you can eat real. You guys made the right move. Good for you.
Yep, I'm an IIFYM "loser"..I've lost over 60lbs. Yay for me!!!0 -
They're important, but not nearly as important. It's very easy to consume the wrong macronutrients. Just look at how many overweight people there are: they're overweight because they consume improper amounts of macronutrients.
Gonna have to disagree on this one. People gain weight because they eat too many calories, regardless of what their macro breakdown is.
I'm sure you know this, but calories come from macronutrients.0 -
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.
We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.
We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.
My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .
We are going strong.
A way restrictive move. Food is not "junk", we have only allowed orthorexics to label it that way to frighten people. If you are going to restrict eating, you can make it mostly natural and healthy, but allow for some wiggle room for treats. Amazing how a few successful people making a positive moves to enhance their lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Believe the "IIFYM" winners. These are people who have researched their options and are realistic in what they are willing to sacrifice and what they are not willing to sacrifice and they eat food without labelling it as "good" or "bad". Why would one eat so restrictive when you can enjoy life and enjoy food? You guys may want to reevaluate. Just a suggestion.0 -
OP-- I understand why you did it. My dad had a heart attack from eating the occasional burger and fries for fifty years. Finally the consequences added up and almost took his life.
I also agree with other comments that since you did already have that food, it was a bit extreme to throw it away. When you are closer to your weight loss goal, you might find that snacking on processed foods is not entirely a bad thing, even though they may be generally unhealthy. I don't ever dink soda--I prefer my teeth with enamel--and I avoid hydrogenated oils, high-sodium, etc. However, chips, soft drinks, and snacking foods are a treat to have in my house, and I am perfectly fine with preparing homemade nacho cheese sauce to pour over a nice handful of Tostitos. Tonight, I'm baking mini carrot cakes with cream cheese frosting.
The truth is, nothing in moderation will harm you. Not even a cigarette.0 -
Supplements have been shown to be poorly absorbed. I suspect we'll find that the nutrients in the "fortified" foods are poorly absorbed as well.
Fortified yes. I still prefer to get my nutrients the old fashioned way. :flowerforyou:What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.
If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?
"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.
You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.
It's 99% about macros. Modern foods are so fortified and nutritious you have to try really, really hard to actually achieve any sort of genuine nutrient deficiency.
That's fine. But people harp way too much on micronutrients. Yes, pay attention to them. Make sure you get enough. Take a multivitamin. Get blood work done every year or two by your doc. Eat fruits and veggies. Etc etc. But pretending that eating some Pop Tarts and ice cream mean you're going to be somehow nutrient-deficient is crazy.
BTW, are you the user formerly known as various iterations of "mulberry"?
Of course eating a pop tarts wont make you nutrient deficient if you are otherwise eating a balanced diet. I'm not sure most people who read "eat the pop tarts" *are* eating nutritious foods. But no. No foods are "evil". A few ingredients are pretty craptastic, with no redeeming qualities, but no. No foods are bad. IN MODERATION. Most folks with weight to lose have not done well with some form of moderation or another, resulting in excess calories, thus the excess weight. "In moderation" is easier said than done. Now we eat 50 pringles. After we reach goal it's 70. Then soon we're back to eating the tube. Moderation is tough. Especially when it's yummy, salty, sweet and oily.
As for the other question, no. I have been here for several years (thus the post count), with only one name. This one.
These claims are a far cry from Mulberry. I think you are concerned with "crowding out" nutrition and I understand someone looking at IIFYM and having that concern, but there is room in this approach to avoid that problem. The point is to only allow 10%-20% of one's diet to be "free" or "treats" and unless someone is on a rather low calorie diet, there is plenty of room there to get sufficient protein, good fats, micronutrients, and fiber. The trick is really learning how to balance one's diet in this way, but for many people there is a mental hurdle to doing so. I get that.0 -
They're important, but not nearly as important. It's very easy to consume the wrong macronutrients. Just look at how many overweight people there are: they're overweight because they consume improper amounts of macronutrients.
Gonna have to disagree on this one. People gain weight because they eat too many calories, regardless of what their macro breakdown is.
I'm sure you know this, but calories come from macronutrients.
Yes, exactly my point. It's not about wrong macronutrients, it's about too much food.0 -
Tonight, I'm baking mini carrot cakes with cream cheese frosting.
And there it is - cakes made from vegetables.
*happy ending music*0 -
Seriously, what is "empty" about this?
It really ends up becoming a semantic debate. People view the 50g of white bread and the calories it imparts (200kcal) and then look at the nutritional information.
Then they look at, say, an isocaloric amount of, as a for instance, spinach, beef, and rice. Calorie for calorie, the second meal has more fat, more fiber, more protein, and higher levels of some of the micronutrients (likely less in some others as well, so we can even call it a wash). Then they look at the fact that the second meal is larger (I calculated on 50g of each) which will likely lead to higher satiety.
They conclude that, relative to the first meal, the second meal is better for them - and that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.0 -
OK. So I am CLEARLY late to this party, but wanted to give you kudos for removing what are apparently trigger foods for you and your buddy. Keep going strong!0
-
A way restrictive move. Food is not "junk", we have only allowed orthorexics to label it that way to frighten people. If you are going to restrict eating, you can make it mostly natural and healthy, but allow for some wiggle room for treats. Amazing how a few successful people making a positive moves to enhance their lifestyle can bring out all the haters. Believe the "IIFYM" winners. These are people who have researched their options and are realistic in what they are willing to sacrifice and what they are not willing to sacrifice and they eat food without labelling it as "good" or "bad". Why would one eat so restrictive when you can enjoy life and enjoy food? You guys may want to reevaluate. Just a suggestion.
You might want to reevaluate your belief that not everyone has the same tendencies and desires towards food that you do. Also, denigrating people with a different philosophy than you as not having researched or are being unrealistic is probably not the way to have a good conversation -- though it's not particularly clear whether you want one or not.0 -
What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.
If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?
"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.
You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.
I don't see how eating a pop tart, which typically has 13-16g of sugars, translates into "getting mass amounts of pure sugar". That's just asinine.
Yes I was exaggerating but a 200 calorie pop tart is not 200 calories of nutrition plain and simple. You are displacing real nutrients with those calories which is why they are "empty" calories. Sugar is not an essential nutrient. If someone is drinking sodas and eating pop tarts regularly then yes that is what I would consider mass amounts of sugar that is completely unnecessary and does nobody any good in reaching any real health goals, whether it is for internal health and well being or for trying to drop weight in a healthy way. And a lot of people actually do consume these things regularly and it really can lead to legitimate nutrient deficiencies regardless of how fortified their cereal and bread may be.
Seriously, what is "empty" about this?
There is no guarantee that the additions to these foods are actually well absorbed. How often are we told to take vitamins, then wait they really don't do much good try it in this new form from a different source, etc etc. Our bodies absorb these things much more readily from natural sources in balance with other specific nutrients. Pretty sure you and I have very different ideas on these concepts though so I doubt either of us can convince each other otherwise. If you want to eat a pop tart go for it. Just don't think you should be trying to convince anyone it's a good thing to include in your diet and think it's a good breakfast choice to get you going for the day. Again, how I feel. Personally, I think they're super gross... Toaster streudels were way better. And I can't eat either of them anyway so it makes no difference to me... Hah!0 -
This. Exactly.
Supplements have been shown to be poorly absorbed. I suspect we'll find that the nutrients in the "fortified" foods are poorly absorbed as well.
Fortified yes. I still prefer to get my nutrients the old fashioned way. :flowerforyou:What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.
If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?
"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.
You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.
It's 99% about macros. Modern foods are so fortified and nutritious you have to try really, really hard to actually achieve any sort of genuine nutrient deficiency.
That's fine. But people harp way too much on micronutrients. Yes, pay attention to them. Make sure you get enough. Take a multivitamin. Get blood work done every year or two by your doc. Eat fruits and veggies. Etc etc. But pretending that eating some Pop Tarts and ice cream mean you're going to be somehow nutrient-deficient is crazy.
BTW, are you the user formerly known as various iterations of "mulberry"?
Of course eating a pop tarts wont make you nutrient deficient if you are otherwise eating a balanced diet. I'm not sure most people who read "eat the pop tarts" *are* eating nutritious foods. But no. No foods are "evil". A few ingredients are pretty craptastic, with no redeeming qualities, but no. No foods are bad. IN MODERATION. Most folks with weight to lose have not done well with some form of moderation or another, resulting in excess calories, thus the excess weight. "In moderation" is easier said than done. Now we eat 50 pringles. After we reach goal it's 70. Then soon we're back to eating the tube. Moderation is tough. Especially when it's yummy, salty, sweet and oily.
As for the other question, no. I have been here for several years (thus the post count), with only one name. This one.
These claims are a far cry from Mulberry. I think you are concerned with "crowding out" nutrition and I understand someone looking at IIFYM and having that concern, but there is room in this approach to avoid that problem. The point is to only allow 10%-20% of one's diet to be "free" or "treats" and unless someone is on a rather low calorie diet, there is plenty of room there to get sufficient protein, good fats, micronutrients, and fiber. The trick is really learning how to balance one's diet in this way, but for many people there is a mental hurdle to doing so. I get that.
And who is Mulberry and do I need to care? :flowerforyou:0 -
That's fine. But people harp way too much on micronutrients. Yes, pay attention to them. Make sure you get enough. Take a multivitamin. Get blood work done every year or two by your doc. Eat fruits and veggies. Etc etc. But pretending that eating some Pop Tarts and ice cream mean you're going to be somehow nutrient-deficient is crazy.I think people harp way too much on macronutrients. They project the view that macros are all that matter, even when they know it's not true. They defend their junk food vehemently, even though they know that most of their diet is not junk. They seem to want us to believe we can't be happy or maintain a healthy weight without drinking soda or eating Pop Tarts. It's all so friggin' ridiculous. Junk food is just junk food. It's not necessary.
I can get behind this.0 -
I will take the soda, chips and cookies.0
-
Seriously, what is "empty" about this?
It really ends up becoming a semantic debate. People view the 50g of white bread and the calories it imparts (200kcal) and then look at the nutritional information.
Then they look at, say, an isocaloric amount of, as a for instance, spinach, beef, and rice. Calorie for calorie, the second meal has more fat, more fiber, more protein, and higher levels of some of the micronutrients (likely less in some others as well, so we can even call it a wash). Then they look at the fact that the second meal is larger (I calculated on 50g of each) which will likely lead to higher satiety.
They conclude that, relative to the first meal, the second meal is better for them - and that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
There's nothing I can disagree with there. I just don't see how one can then label the first meal as "empty".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions