You eat too much.

MonaRaeHill

Oh, yea. Cauliflower does suck wind. BUT, it's cancer preventing, (along with all the other veggies in that cruciferous category), so...........eat your veggies! lol.

Achrya

There's a reason why raw foodists call the Standard American Diet, SAD. American food does suck, but what sucks more, is the amount of food pushers and judgmental *kitten*-holes, out there. For someone like me, who is already an emotional eater, with a brain that never manufactures enough dopamine, it's a double edged sword. (Take away lots of stuff from me, but if you take my chocolate, you die). And, of course, the amount of judgmental arses, too. The whole american culture is sorta' despicable. If you are old, you are invisible. If you are overweight, you are invisible. If you are overweight and old..........well, you get the picture, I am sure. Peeps just have to remember........."there but for the grace of god, go I', be less judgmental, (we all got our challenges........peeps who judge obviously have theirs), and be more civil and kind, (old folks were young, once, just like me/you/and whoever else is under 30, on this site). Enuf' said?

Wut?

BrainyBurro

Oh, yea. Cauliflower does suck wind. BUT, it's cancer preventing, (along with all the other veggies in that cruciferous category), so...........eat your veggies! lol.

in rats and mice? maybe.

in people? the jury is out.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/diet/cruciferous-vegetables

Iron_Feline

There's a reason why raw foodists call the Standard American Diet, SAD. American food does suck, but what sucks more, is the amount of food pushers and judgmental *kitten*-holes, out there. For someone like me, who is already an emotional eater, with a brain that never manufactures enough dopamine, it's a double edged sword. (Take away lots of stuff from me, but if you take my chocolate, you die). And, of course, the amount of judgmental arses, too. The whole american culture is sorta' despicable. If you are old, you are invisible. If you are overweight, you are invisible. If you are overweight and old..........well, you get the picture, I am sure. Peeps just have to remember........."there but for the grace of god, go I', be less judgmental, (we all got our challenges........peeps who judge obviously have theirs), and be more civil and kind, (old folks were young, once, just like me/you/and whoever else is under 30, on this site). Enuf' said?

And this has to do with the topic in what way?

darkrose20

Once you hop on MFP you learn so goddamn much about calories that some foods look absolutely disgusting anymore. (Example - I ate a bagel and cream cheese from Dunkin the other day and almost vomited at the sight of my 850 calorie breakfast. This included the coffee and the iced cider my mother didn't like.)

Calories are everywhere. American food sucks.

....so Ethnic food has no calories? THAT'S what I've been doing wrong. I'm going to the Chineese Bufet for dinner tomorrow. Woo Hoo! No cal dinner! Thanks, man!

jofjltncb6

Calories are everywhere. American food sucks.

If it wasn't for the calories, the food would be worthless...

...and wouldn't even be food...(in the *actual* definition of the word "food", not the popular trite "fast food isn't even food, it's crap" line of thought).

Personally, when deciding what to buy, I calculate the calories/$ and generally lean to the higher calories side because that's a major reason for why we even eat food.

ThickMcRunFast

There's a reason why raw foodists call the Standard American Diet, SAD. American food does suck, but what sucks more, is the amount of food pushers and judgmental *kitten*-holes, out there. For someone like me, who is already an emotional eater, with a brain that never manufactures enough dopamine, it's a double edged sword. (Take away lots of stuff from me, but if you take my chocolate, you die). And, of course, the amount of judgmental arses, too. The whole american culture is sorta' despicable. If you are old, you are invisible. If you are overweight, you are invisible. If you are overweight and old..........well, you get the picture, I am sure. Peeps just have to remember........."there but for the grace of god, go I', be less judgmental, (we all got our challenges........peeps who judge obviously have theirs), and be more civil and kind, (old folks were young, once, just like me/you/and whoever else is under 30, on this site). Enuf' said?

hookilau

This thread. I assume that post was removed before they unlocked this again.

:blushing: I knew I wasn't losing my mind...this thread was locked yesterday, right?...I popped in to see how things were going & it kept defaulting back to the boards home page. :laugh:

loneaffliction

QFFT.

leaaa92

Amazing read, thanks for posting!

AngelaSpens

Yes that makes complete sense. Remember, when your body tells you its hungry its in need of nutrients. You only start packing on the pounds when you eat over dose of unbeneficial foods or even nutritional.

Think of it this way, if you eat too many carrots you turn orange right?

Thats exactly what happening inside your body when you don't eat correct proportions.

psych101

If you are old, you are invisible. If you are overweight, you are invisible. If you are overweight and old..........

.....you're twice as invisible??

jofjltncb6

If you are old, you are invisible. If you are overweight, you are invisible. If you are overweight and old..........

.....you're twice as invisible??

Or maybe one invisible cancels the other invisible and it makes you visible again???

Whoa.

Mind. Blown.

Cadori

QFFT.

This may be my single favorite post ever.

EvgeniZyntx

I always come late to the party. :grumble:

Anyway, as a healthcare professional (20 years+) that marketed the leading anti-cholesterol drug in the 90s I'm going to put this out: the single most important modifiable factors to cardiovascular diseases are weight and activity level. Thus is one of the reasons why the indications of the drugs to treat cholesterol always began with a requirement if at least 6 months of lifestyle modification to adjust weight and activity levels. Does what you eat influence cholesterol levels? Why yes it does, but does it matter? Not really, in the face of other more important factors.
Btw, there is some evidence that not even evil trans fats are all evil - research is beginning to show strange good results from trans fats in beef. But I'll wait that one out.

But let's take current understanding a dive down to the snickers level.

So transfats are understood to increase risks for coronary heart disease, infertility and cancer by, xx% for y% of dietary energy increase. The studies that demonstrate this are particularly flawed but sufficiently consistent that some risk is likely. Let say we believe them. If so, a 2% increase in trans fats creates a ~50% increase in disease risk overall. Maybe.

What does that mean?

Well, in the study cited to make the national recommendations if you got 1.3% of energy from trans fat you had 39% lower risk than those that had 2.8% trans fat. How many snickers is that?

At a baseline of a 2000 calorie diet - that 1.5% increase in calories is 30 calories. Not a lot. 3.3 g of transfat. So how many snickers do you need to eat to increase your (actually low) base risk or CHD by 39%? Well, the nutritional label says a snickers has zero g of trans fats. Oh, rly?

Actually, in 300 calorie bar the trans fats are about 0.165 to 0.2 g. It seems you would need to eat 10+ bars a day to get that 39% increase. But 10 bars is 3000 calories alone. So yeah, in a balance calorie limited diet eating a Snickers does not really align with this idea of increased health risk. It's only bad food in your head.

Oh and what was that total risk? About 1.3% of having a coronary event over 20 years was the reported average across the entire population. So the total risk in this period is still low.

Again, lose that fat, stay active. Eat well overall. These are better modifiable factors that truly impact health end points.

Forest, trees.

---

The study:http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/7/672.full.pdf

RivenV

I always come late to the party. :grumble:

Anyway, as a healthcare professional (20 years+) that marketed the leading anti-cholesterol drug in the 90s I'm going to put this out: the single most important modifiable factors to cardiovascular diseases are weight and activity level. Thus is one of the reasons why the indications of the drugs to treat cholesterol always began with a requirement if at least 6 months of lifestyle modification to adjust weight and activity levels. Does what you eat influence cholesterol levels? Why yes it does, but does it matter? Not really, in the face of other more important factors.
Btw, there is some evidence that not even evil trans fats are all evil - research is beginning to show strange good results from trans fats in beef. But I'll wait that one out.

But let's take current understanding a dive down to the snickers level.

So transfats are understood to increase risks for coronary heart disease, infertility and cancer by, xx% for y% of dietary energy increase. The studies that demonstrate this are particularly flawed but sufficiently consistent that some risk is likely. Let say we believe them. If so, a 2% increase in trans fats creates a ~50% increase in disease risk overall. Maybe.

What does that mean?

Well, in the study cited to make the national recommendations if you got 1.3% of energy from trans fat you had 39% lower risk than those that had 2.8% trans fat. How many snickers is that?

At a baseline of a 2000 calorie diet - that 1.5% increase in calories is 30 calories. Not a lot. 3.3 g of transfat. So how many snickers do you need to eat to increase your (actually low) base risk or CHD by 39%? Well, the nutritional label says a snickers has zero g of trans fats. Oh, rly?

Actually, in 300 calorie bar the trans fats are about 0.165 to 0.2 g. It seems you would need to eat 10+ bars a day to get that 39% increase. But 10 bars is 3000 calories alone. So yeah, in a balance calorie limited diet eating a Snickers does not really align with this idea of increased health risk. It's only bad food in your head.

Oh and what was that total risk? About 1.3% of having a coronary event over 20 years was the reported average across the entire population. So the total risk in this period is still low.

Again, lose that fat, stay active. Eat well overall. These are better modifiable factors that truly impact health end points.

Forest, trees.

---

The study:http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/7/672.full.pdf

Strong entrance.

jonnythan

I always come late to the party. :grumble:

Anyway, as a healthcare professional (20 years+) that marketed the leading anti-cholesterol drug in the 90s I'm going to put this out: the single most important modifiable factors to cardiovascular diseases are weight and activity level. Thus is one of the reasons why the indications of the drugs to treat cholesterol always began with a requirement if at least 6 months of lifestyle modification to adjust weight and activity levels. Does what you eat influence cholesterol levels? Why yes it does, but does it matter? Not really, in the face of other more important factors.
Btw, there is some evidence that not even evil trans fats are all evil - research is beginning to show strange good results from trans fats in beef. But I'll wait that one out.

But let's take current understanding a dive down to the snickers level.

So transfats are understood to increase risks for coronary heart disease, infertility and cancer by, xx% for y% of dietary energy increase. The studies that demonstrate this are particularly flawed but sufficiently consistent that some risk is likely. Let say we believe them. If so, a 2% increase in trans fats creates a ~50% increase in disease risk overall. Maybe.

What does that mean?

Well, in the study cited to make the national recommendations if you got 1.3% of energy from trans fat you had 39% lower risk than those that had 2.8% trans fat. How many snickers is that?

At a baseline of a 2000 calorie diet - that 1.5% increase in calories is 30 calories. Not a lot. 3.3 g of transfat. So how many snickers do you need to eat to increase your (actually low) base risk or CHD by 39%? Well, the nutritional label says a snickers has zero g of trans fats. Oh, rly?

Actually, in 300 calorie bar the trans fats are about 0.165 to 0.2 g. It seems you would need to eat 10+ bars a day to get that 39% increase. But 10 bars is 3000 calories alone. So yeah, in a balance calorie limited diet eating a Snickers does not really align with this idea of increased health risk. It's only bad food in your head.

Oh and what was that total risk? About 1.3% of having a coronary event over 20 years was the reported average across the entire population. So the total risk in this period is still low.

Again, lose that fat, stay active. Eat well overall. These are better modifiable factors that truly impact health end points.

Forest, trees.

---

The study:http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/7/672.full.pdf

Strong entrance.

KALIMA!!

I agree.

VorJoshigan

If you are old, you are invisible. If you are overweight, you are invisible. If you are overweight and old..........

.....you're twice as invisible??

Or maybe one invisible cancels the other invisible and it makes you visible again???

Whoa.

Mind. Blown.

How are you defining old? One of the reasons I started losing weight was because I was thinking I didn't see very many obese elderly people. After the post two posts up, I then figured it was because they were invisible, but now I'm all confused again!

shapefitter

May I suggest that some body fat is needed to keep warm. In the northern hemisphere for example it is not a good idea to be on a diet, during the coldest months of the year.

Josie_lifting_cats

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/6051/you-eat-too-much/

Most of you know this. Many of you don't. You don't get fat by eating the wrong foods or your genetics or whatever. You get fat by eating too much. End of story.

There are no magic diets. There are no evil nutrients. There are no bad foods. If you achieve and maintain a healthy body composition and exercise regularly you will have basically the best physical health you can have within a margin of maybe a couple of percent.

Take ownership of how much you eat and you will succeed. That's what MFP is all about.

...except cauliflower. It's pure evil.




.

Whaaaa........?????? Cauliflower is angels singing in harmony!