All calories are not the same

Otterluv

My suspicion would be more frustrated with going in circles trying to reason, while the other side is spouting semantic nonsense. But, that's just my guess :flowerforyou:

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

I wasn't worried about semantics and hadn't even shared my take on it. I would have been pleased to see answers that addressed those, but instead I got attacked.

nbd, moving on

Oooooh. Nope, your comments came off totally different (to me anyway). You kept coming back to that definition (I'm not sure of by what source), which gave the appearance that you were arguing semantics. Perhaps sharing your take on it could have been helpful?

wild_wild_life

My suspicion would be more frustrated with going in circles trying to reason, while the other side is spouting semantic nonsense. But, that's just my guess :flowerforyou:

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

I wasn't worried about semantics and hadn't even shared my take on it. I would have been pleased to see answers that addressed those, but instead I got attacked.

nbd, moving on

I think people are simply taking issue with the underlying premise that there is a clear distinction between whole and processed foods. I would also hazard a bet that most people do not believe as a rule that whole foods are more nutritious than processed foods by any definition.

aliciap412

Can you point us to where the definition of whole foods for plants is "ability to be picked and eaten?" I haven't been able to find it but want to understand the reasoning better.

this isn't quite a good explanation but maybe it will help

http://nutrition.about.com/od/askyournutritionist/f/cutveg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_food

I dislike sharing wiki as a reputable source, but as many of us already know, the facts on whole foods are a bit diluted and some of these sites have an agenda. wiki is straight forward on this one.

BeachIron

My suspicion would be more frustrated with going in circles trying to reason, while the other side is spouting semantic nonsense. But, that's just my guess :flowerforyou:

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

I wasn't worried about semantics and hadn't even shared my take on it. I would have been pleased to see answers that addressed those, but instead I got attacked.

nbd, moving on

Oooooh. Nope, your comments came off totally different (to me anyway). You kept coming back to that definition (I'm not sure of by what source), which gave the appearance that you were arguing semantics. Perhaps sharing your take on it could have been helpful?

Meh. She seems to be the one that has gotten repeatedly upset and posted attacks, and at least one "I'm taking my toys and going home" threat. I'm just here for the entertainment.

LiftAllThePizzas

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

Wow, whole foods tend to have more micronutrients? Who would have guessed.

This was addressed already. There is no benefit to exceeding your body's needs. If you get 17 times as much vitamin C in your diet as you need, you will not magically become 17 times as healthy. So it's only relevant within specific contexts where someone is undernourished, in which case the answer is still not "eat only whole foods" it's simply "make your diet consist of a larger proportion of more nutrient dense foods."

I have yet to see a single person ever seriously suggest that someone should avoid all whole foods or only exclusively eat 'processed' foods and ignore their micronutrient needs. But it is the is the usual strawman that is dragged up by the pro-orthrexia crowd -- whether they are trying to propagandize for veganism, clean eating, or whatever other restrictive diet -- and beaten to death on an hourly basis on these forums.

aliciap412

Oooooh. Nope, your comments came off totally different (to me anyway). You kept coming back to that definition (I'm not sure of by what source), which gave the appearance that you were arguing semantics. Perhaps sharing your take on it could have been helpful?

you're not going to like this, but I have not fully developed my opinion on this. thats actually why I (tried to) ask the question to everyone here.

I have been part of a round table discussion among many dietitians and nutritionists discussing the topic and current research, but even that group did not have a common consensus on anything other than the loss of nutritional value from vine to table and manipulation (cutting) to mouth being legit. some could argue this is the same thing, but I'm not going to go there myself.

whierd

My suspicion would be more frustrated with going in circles trying to reason, while the other side is spouting semantic nonsense. But, that's just my guess :flowerforyou:

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

I wasn't worried about semantics and hadn't even shared my take on it. I would have been pleased to see answers that addressed those, but instead I got attacked.

nbd, moving on

Oooooh. Nope, your comments came off totally different (to me anyway). You kept coming back to that definition (I'm not sure of by what source), which gave the appearance that you were arguing semantics. Perhaps sharing your take on it could have been helpful?

Meh. She seems to be the one that has gotten repeatedly upset and posted attacks, and at least one "I'm taking my toys and going home" threat. I'm just here for the entertainment.

Yup. I got into an argument with her in another thread too. She seems pretty dedicated to her own ideas, regardless of any fallacies.

aliciap412

I'll admit, I did find the responses to my comments in this thread frustrating but I am not upset about it. I'm a pretty easy going person. its all good friends

:drinker:

^thats just water guys

FlaxMilk

The part defining what makes a whole grain was very useful. Thanks!

aliciap412

The part defining what makes a whole grain was very useful. Thanks!

no problem

Otterluv

My suspicion would be more frustrated with going in circles trying to reason, while the other side is spouting semantic nonsense. But, that's just my guess :flowerforyou:

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

I wasn't worried about semantics and hadn't even shared my take on it. I would have been pleased to see answers that addressed those, but instead I got attacked.

nbd, moving on

Oooooh. Nope, your comments came off totally different (to me anyway). You kept coming back to that definition (I'm not sure of by what source), which gave the appearance that you were arguing semantics. Perhaps sharing your take on it could have been helpful?

Meh. She seems to be the one that has gotten repeatedly upset and posted attacks, and at least one "I'm taking my toys and going home" threat. I'm just here for the entertainment.

Yup. I got into an argument with her in another thread too. She seems pretty dedicated to her own ideas, regardless of any fallacies.

This is my first. But, I did save my descriptions of processes for wheat, chicken, and Camas cakes (which is all true and I'm pretty proud of) for future use when it's a real discussion. So, there's that.

PhoenixStrikes

FFS a calorie is a calorie, end of story! Start a thread with a more relevant title like 'nutrient dense food vs low nutrient food'

This! I admit I have a hard time with IIFIYM type dieting for ME because when I eat a lot of processed foods I feel more sluggish than when I eat cleaner. And the closer I get to my goal weight the less "junk food" I can eat and see results. BUT that doesn't mean I think the same thing applies for every one. Calories are calories, I have a lot of friends who eat take out, cookies, and ice cream all day while staying under calories and they lose weight. I can't comment on how the FEEL with this diet but maybe they're better able to handle it? I agree with the sentiment of the OP if you eat more fruits and veggies than chips and cookie you will feel better but that's just been from my personal experience.

BTW eating less junk food means you get to eat more quantity wise, my husband surprised me with Taco Bell today (for the first time in months) and after logging what I ate I pretty much doubled my sodium intake that means that no matter what I do I am going over sodium and its only 1pm for me. If I had eaten like I usually do I would have had way more protein and nearly half the salt and i would have been able to eat at least two more meals.

whierd

My suspicion would be more frustrated with going in circles trying to reason, while the other side is spouting semantic nonsense. But, that's just my guess :flowerforyou:

I expected those who read this thread and my comments would have realized that I was suggesting "whole foods have more nutritional value than processed" was the OP's intention with this thread. and I wanted to hear people's opinions on that.

I wasn't worried about semantics and hadn't even shared my take on it. I would have been pleased to see answers that addressed those, but instead I got attacked.

nbd, moving on

Oooooh. Nope, your comments came off totally different (to me anyway). You kept coming back to that definition (I'm not sure of by what source), which gave the appearance that you were arguing semantics. Perhaps sharing your take on it could have been helpful?

Meh. She seems to be the one that has gotten repeatedly upset and posted attacks, and at least one "I'm taking my toys and going home" threat. I'm just here for the entertainment.

Yup. I got into an argument with her in another thread too. She seems pretty dedicated to her own ideas, regardless of any fallacies.

This is my first. But, I did save my descriptions of processes for wheat, chicken, and Camas cakes (which is all true and I'm pretty proud of) for future use when it's a real discussion. So, there's that.

Hah! I am always proud when I go through and describe the processes as well. Knowledge ftw!

corgicake

Course the calories are different! 250 calories of pizza tastes delicious and 250 calories of quinoa tastes like traditional diets being replaced with rubbish due to folks in the 'states buying up the stuff.

wild_wild_life

This is my first. But, I did save my descriptions of processes for wheat, chicken, and Camas cakes (which is all true and I'm pretty proud of) for future use when it's a real discussion. So, there's that.

The Camas cake thing was very cool. :drinker:

Otterluv

This is my first. But, I did save my descriptions of processes for wheat, chicken, and Camas cakes (which is all true and I'm pretty proud of) for future use when it's a real discussion. So, there's that.

The Camas cake thing was very cool. :drinker:

Thanks! We have some amazing local archeologists (some associated with our local Universities) and they keep finding evidence of the process that goes back further and further. Now they know that it was done over 10,000 years ago. I think that we can tend to underestimate the ingenuity and technology of ancient cultures and assume that humans were strictly cave dwelling "use what ever you can find" communities. The truth is much more complex. There was elaborate trade, they carved canoes for fishing and travel, there was art, there were stories being told in the winter. Unfortunately, because fiber breaks down, the amazingly intricate ropes, ladders, structures, and furniture didn't last. What we are left with are rocks.


I have Camas flowers in my garden, and hope to plant them in my meadow. You can cook them for a day or two in a crock pot, I guess they come out much like a sweet potato, but even yummier. The bulbs look like lily bulbs.

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

FFS a calorie is a calorie, end of story! Start a thread with a more relevant title like 'nutrient dense food vs low nutrient food'

This! I admit I have a hard time with IIFIYM type dieting for ME because when I eat a lot of processed foods I feel more sluggish than when I eat cleaner. And the closer I get to my goal weight the less "junk food" I can eat and see results. BUT that doesn't mean I think the same thing applies for every one. Calories are calories, I have a lot of friends who eat take out, cookies, and ice cream all day while staying under calories and they lose weight. I can't comment on how the FEEL with this diet but maybe they're better able to handle it? I agree with the sentiment of the OP if you eat more fruits and veggies than chips and cookie you will feel better but that's just been from my personal experience.

BTW eating less junk food means you get to eat more quantity wise, my husband surprised me with Taco Bell today (for the first time in months) and after logging what I ate I pretty much doubled my sodium intake that means that no matter what I do I am going over sodium and its only 1pm for me. If I had eaten like I usually do I would have had way more protein and nearly half the salt and i would have been able to eat at least two more meals.

I am not sure I agree with your description of IIFYM. I am an IIFYM eater, and I wouldn't say processed foods are a very large part of my diet. It's hard to hit macro and micronutrient goals eating takeout, cookies, and ice cream all day. What you're talking about is calories in versus calories out. That has nothing to do with IIFYM. For most, eating IIFYM requires actually paying careful attention to everything that goes into the body because many are doing IIFYM in conjunction with body recomposition and building lean mass. Most IIFYMers have a relatively high protein macro requirement that would be hard to meet by eating a bunch of carbs, regardless of the source of those carbs.

There's way too much misinformation about IIFYM and what it really is on these boards by people who just presume it's a bunch of people living on pop tarts and ice cream.

As to the original post, there's already ample schooling going on so there's very little reason to interject and repeat what several others are saying.

ThickMcRunFast

FFS a calorie is a calorie, end of story! Start a thread with a more relevant title like 'nutrient dense food vs low nutrient food'

This! I admit I have a hard time with IIFIYM type dieting for ME because when I eat a lot of processed foods I feel more sluggish than when I eat cleaner. And the closer I get to my goal weight the less "junk food" I can eat and see results. BUT that doesn't mean I think the same thing applies for every one. Calories are calories, I have a lot of friends who eat take out, cookies, and ice cream all day while staying under calories and they lose weight. I can't comment on how the FEEL with this diet but maybe they're better able to handle it? I agree with the sentiment of the OP if you eat more fruits and veggies than chips and cookie you will feel better but that's just been from my personal experience.

BTW eating less junk food means you get to eat more quantity wise, my husband surprised me with Taco Bell today (for the first time in months) and after logging what I ate I pretty much doubled my sodium intake that means that no matter what I do I am going over sodium and its only 1pm for me. If I had eaten like I usually do I would have had way more protein and nearly half the salt and i would have been able to eat at least two more meals.

I am not sure I agree with your description of IIFYM. I am an IIFYM eater, and I wouldn't say processed foods are a very large part of my diet. It's hard to hit macro and micronutrient goals eating takeout, cookies, and ice cream all day. What you're talking about is calories in versus calories out. That has nothing to do with IIFYM. For most, eating IIFYM requires actually paying careful attention to everything that goes into the body because many are doing IIFYM in conjunction with body recomposition and building lean mass. Most IIFYMers have a relatively high protein macro requirement that would be hard to meet by eating a bunch of carbs, regardless of the source of those carbs.

There's way too much misinformation about IIFYM and what it really is on these boards by people who just presume it's a bunch of people living on pop tarts and ice cream.

As to the original post, there's already ample schooling going on so there's very little reason to interject and repeat what several others are saying.

I would agree with this. I Do IIFYM, and while I do not label any food as 'bad', I do pay attention (since I am good with my weight but want to lose 1-2 body fat%). I make sure I hit my protein first (120g), then I can begin to look at fat and carbs. Being a distance runner, I have to look at carb consumption a lot.

Its just a view that after I make sure my nutritional needs are met, I can fill up the rest with pop tarts or strawberries, and it will not make one bit of difference.

eta: I should say it makes no nutritional difference. It makes a psychological difference, because a life without wine, pizza, or pumpkin spice lattes is no life at all.

Mother_Superior

FFS a calorie is a calorie, end of story! Start a thread with a more relevant title like 'nutrient dense food vs low nutrient food'

This! I admit I have a hard time with IIFIYM type dieting for ME because when I eat a lot of processed foods I feel more sluggish than when I eat cleaner. And the closer I get to my goal weight the less "junk food" I can eat and see results. BUT that doesn't mean I think the same thing applies for every one. Calories are calories, I have a lot of friends who eat take out, cookies, and ice cream all day while staying under calories and they lose weight. I can't comment on how the FEEL with this diet but maybe they're better able to handle it? I agree with the sentiment of the OP if you eat more fruits and veggies than chips and cookie you will feel better but that's just been from my personal experience.

BTW eating less junk food means you get to eat more quantity wise, my husband surprised me with Taco Bell today (for the first time in months) and after logging what I ate I pretty much doubled my sodium intake that means that no matter what I do I am going over sodium and its only 1pm for me. If I had eaten like I usually do I would have had way more protein and nearly half the salt and i would have been able to eat at least two more meals.

I am not sure I agree with your description of IIFYM. I am an IIFYM eater, and I wouldn't say processed foods are a very large part of my diet. It's hard to hit macro and micronutrient goals eating takeout, cookies, and ice cream all day. What you're talking about is calories in versus calories out. That has nothing to do with IIFYM. For most, eating IIFYM requires actually paying careful attention to everything that goes into the body because many are doing IIFYM in conjunction with body recomposition and building lean mass. Most IIFYMers have a relatively high protein macro requirement that would be hard to meet by eating a bunch of carbs, regardless of the source of those carbs.

There's way too much misinformation about IIFYM and what it really is on these boards by people who just presume it's a bunch of people living on pop tarts and ice cream.

As to the original post, there's already ample schooling going on so there's very little reason to interject and repeat what several others are saying.

angel79202

This doesn't surprise me, majority of you use chemical substances such as aspartame ad sucralose as an alternative to sugar, because someone, somewhere told you it's completely healthy and natural.

Anyways, I dare any of you to consume 1200 calories of pizza a day for a month and monitor your results.
Now the next month eat 1200 calories of whole natural foods, preferably raw, organic fruits and vegetables. including raw nuts. and no, peanuts are not nuts. Now if you yield the same results with both diets I would be amazed, and it's simply would not happen. The fact is, at the end of the day, your body stores away fat in a means of protecting you. It's not going to store away the vegetables because it doesn't contain any fat, your body wants to store fat in case you suddenly don't have food anymore.
Pizza is a completely man made food, your body wasn't even designed to even digest man made foods . The body thrives on natural foods.

but I eat more than 1200 calories..what do I do?
LOL