We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
looking for nutritarian friends
Replies
-
Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Discussing. Absolutely. The first 15 or 20 posts didn't seem like discussion. It seemed more like the gate at the dog park when a new and younger pup arrives.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
I think the value of the dietary approach is worth discussing.
It doesn't sound "wrong" as long as somebody isn't using it to be orthorexic (is that a word). It doesn't sound like something we all necessarily need to try either.
This is MFP after all.0 -
Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.0
-
Don't forget the kittens. They get offended easily when ignored.Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.0 -
Don't forget the kittens. They get offended easily when ignored.Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.
That was a given when I said "gifs".0 -
My bad. :flowerforyou:
Don't forget the kittens. They get offended easily when ignored.Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.
That was a given when I said "gifs".0 -
Perhaps. But, I'm not so sure. In fact, I added a B supplement recently, and a few annoying little "middle aged" issues improved. Regardless.... I stand by my statement. :-)
Can the 5'1 62 year old? Her "discretionary" calorie allotment would be pretty small.
And I'd also say: we all AIM to eat nutritiously, but rarely do we always succeed. I doubt most folks are excreting mass quantities of many nutrients.While I applaud the intentional eating of nutritious foods, I cannot help but wonder what the point of eating so many nutrients is, as our bodies generally can only use so many per day.
If you're a 5'1" 62 year old female, it makes some sense.
How so? She will still reach a limit on utilization just like everyone else and any excess is (at best) excreted.
She'd probably be close to or at 1200 and it's just difficult to get all your nutrients in at that level. I eat more than double that and have to be very conscious of iron and vitamin A.
I can fit in plenty of (what is the opposite of nutritionally dense?) foods regularly as long as I make sure I watch my "trouble areas."
Here's my thing, I "aim" for the nutrient dense foods. I am not 100% successful. Nor will I ever be. Nor do I think that's a problem. I certainly don't think I'm excreting "extra" nutrients right and left.
You probably are. At least B and C.0 -
:flowerforyou:
And thus, the OP's beliefs.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
only people looking to be butthurt would see that connection.
if i told you that Star Wars was stupid, would you take that as a personal attack?0 -
Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Discussing. Absolutely. The first 15 or 20 posts didn't seem like discussion. It seemed more like the gate at the dog park when a new and younger pup arrives.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
I think the value of the dietary approach is worth discussing.
It doesn't sound "wrong" as long as somebody isn't using it to be orthorexic (is that a word). It doesn't sound like something we all necessarily need to try either.
This is MFP after all.
Actually, the first 15 were all supportive.0 -
Perhaps. But, I'm not so sure. In fact, I added a B supplement recently, and a few annoying little "middle aged" issues improved. Regardless.... I stand by my statement. :-)
Can the 5'1 62 year old? Her "discretionary" calorie allotment would be pretty small.
And I'd also say: we all AIM to eat nutritiously, but rarely do we always succeed. I doubt most folks are excreting mass quantities of many nutrients.While I applaud the intentional eating of nutritious foods, I cannot help but wonder what the point of eating so many nutrients is, as our bodies generally can only use so many per day.
If you're a 5'1" 62 year old female, it makes some sense.
How so? She will still reach a limit on utilization just like everyone else and any excess is (at best) excreted.
She'd probably be close to or at 1200 and it's just difficult to get all your nutrients in at that level. I eat more than double that and have to be very conscious of iron and vitamin A.
I can fit in plenty of (what is the opposite of nutritionally dense?) foods regularly as long as I make sure I watch my "trouble areas."
Here's my thing, I "aim" for the nutrient dense foods. I am not 100% successful. Nor will I ever be. Nor do I think that's a problem. I certainly don't think I'm excreting "extra" nutrients right and left.
You probably are. At least B and C.
Well, now you are.... 0 -
People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.0
-
And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
Well, If you could get your nutrition from food you wouldn't have to pay for supplements to turn your urine into vitamin filled urine. Also vitamin supplements cause some people to become nauseated or even vomit. Not that I am against taking a multi vitamin. Just explaining that.0 -
Me!!!!! Plant based here!!!!! Open diary!!!!!
Only thing I won't give up is my Greek yogurt and hot cocoa and Stevia
Other than those things plant based all the way I even make my own peanut butter no added sugars
Do you seriously frequently eat <50g of protein daily??? And frequently <20g fat???
Egads.
In addition to worrying about the damage you have done in the past (per your motto on your profile page), you may also want to give some strong consideration about the present and future.
I believe protein is overrated I have a number of reasons I believe this! The China study is one reason. If u want glowing skin and energy for days try a plant based diet. It is hard and scary to break away from the old ways of things though! So it may not be for you!
Good luck on your journey
This gave me quite a chuckle...
...since I posted earlier between sets in the gym and am now posting this during a cool-down walk at the track after intervals.
:laugh:
I eat a lot of plants. I also eat a lot of meat. Hell, I eat a lot, period...because active...because plenty of energy. And before "but young male", I'm 42.
Best of luck to you on your China Study-based approach to nutrition.0 -
Me!!!!! Plant based here!!!!! Open diary!!!!!
Only thing I won't give up is my Greek yogurt and hot cocoa and Stevia
Other than those things plant based all the way I even make my own peanut butter no added sugars
Do you seriously frequently eat <50g of protein daily??? And frequently <20g fat???
Egads.
In addition to worrying about the damage you have done in the past (per your motto on your profile page), you may also want to give some strong consideration about the present and future.
I believe protein is overrated I have a number of reasons I believe this! The China study is one reason. If u want glowing skin and energy for days try a plant based diet. It is hard and scary to break away from the old ways of things though! So it may not be for you!
Good luck on your journey
Then you are simply ill-informed about nutrition and performance. You are also ill-informed about the nature of scientific study.0 -
Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Interesting. When I hold a belief that is in the extreme minority, it makes me reconsider my belief. That isn't to say that it means it is automatically wrong, but it's a solid clue that it may be.
To cry "group think" is insulting in that it purports that those with whom you disagree have reached their differing conclusions not based on their own research but simply because everyone else believes it. While I can't speak for the others, I know that in my specific case, this is simply untrue.
TL;DR - Mom! Everyone on the internet thinks I'm wrong about something! :stomps feet:0 -
Perhaps I wasn't speaking of you.Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Interesting. When I hold a belief that is in the extreme minority, it makes me reconsider my belief. That isn't to say that it means it is automatically wrong, but it's a solid clue that it may be.
To cry "group think" is insulting in that it purports that those with whom you disagree have reached their differing conclusions not based on their own research but simply because everyone else believes it. While I can't speak for the others, I know that in my specific case, this is simply untrue.
TL;DR - Mom! Everyone on the internet thinks I'm wrong about something! :stomps feet:0 -
Perhaps I wasn't speaking of you.Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Interesting. When I hold a belief that is in the extreme minority, it makes me reconsider my belief. That isn't to say that it means it is automatically wrong, but it's a solid clue that it may be.
To cry "group think" is insulting in that it purports that those with whom you disagree have reached their differing conclusions not based on their own research but simply because everyone else believes it. While I can't speak for the others, I know that in my specific case, this is simply untrue.
TL;DR - Mom! Everyone on the internet thinks I'm wrong about something! :stomps feet:
Irrelevant. My post applies to anyone who cries "group think" as a defense, whether or not I'm a member of the "group".0 -
In the quote above you it said what 90% came from, so simple math is where the 10% came from.
Ah, good catch. I stand corrected. (ETA: this is what I get for trying to forum between sets.)
Okay, *now* I can go back to challenging the diet itself instead of my incorrect belief that there were multiple interpretations of what it means.
(Although now I'm curious...is that 90% by weight? By calories? By volume? I suppose I'd have to read the book to know for sure.)
Damn! Do you just like to argue with people or what? Whatever that 90% means, I think the concept is a valuable one: Choose food that is more nutritionally dense. This would have people choosing whole grains over refined flours, leafy greens over potatoes, pasture raised beef over that raised on grains.
(but then I haven't read the book either, so maybe I'm oversimplifying).0 -
If you say so.
Perhaps I wasn't speaking of you.Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Interesting. When I hold a belief that is in the extreme minority, it makes me reconsider my belief. That isn't to say that it means it is automatically wrong, but it's a solid clue that it may be.
To cry "group think" is insulting in that it purports that those with whom you disagree have reached their differing conclusions not based on their own research but simply because everyone else believes it. While I can't speak for the others, I know that in my specific case, this is simply untrue.
TL;DR - Mom! Everyone on the internet thinks I'm wrong about something! :stomps feet:
Irrelevant. My post applies to anyone who cries "group think" as a defense, whether or not I'm a member of the "group".0 -
And thus, the OP's beliefs.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?
Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.
EVER.
Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.0 -
In the quote above you it said what 90% came from, so simple math is where the 10% came from.
Ah, good catch. I stand corrected. (ETA: this is what I get for trying to forum between sets.)
Okay, *now* I can go back to challenging the diet itself instead of my incorrect belief that there were multiple interpretations of what it means.
(Although now I'm curious...is that 90% by weight? By calories? By volume? I suppose I'd have to read the book to know for sure.)
Damn! Do you just like to argue with people or what? Whatever that 90% means, I think the concept is a valuable one: Choose food that is more nutritionally dense. This would have people choosing whole grains over refined flours, leafy greens over potatoes, pasture raised beef over that raised on grains.
(but then I haven't read the book either, so maybe I'm oversimplifying).
Weird, that I'd discuss my opinion and ask questions on a message board, huh?
But anyhow, you're not curious about how they measure the 90%? The 90% part is apparently a fundamental aspect of the program. Surely there's a nutritarian reading this thread that could clear this up for me, right?
And since "but then I haven't read the book either", I guess I'll counter with: Damn! Do you just like to share your uninformed opinion with people or what?0 -
And thus, the OP's beliefs.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?
Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.
EVER.
Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.
careful the paleolites will smite you!0 -
And thus, the OP's beliefs.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?
Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.
EVER.
Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.
careful the paleolites will smite you!
0 -
Sure you can. And I can comment on it.
And thus, the OP's beliefs.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?
Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.
EVER.
Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.0 -
Perhaps I wasn't speaking of you.Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
Interesting. When I hold a belief that is in the extreme minority, it makes me reconsider my belief. That isn't to say that it means it is automatically wrong, but it's a solid clue that it may be.
To cry "group think" is insulting in that it purports that those with whom you disagree have reached their differing conclusions not based on their own research but simply because everyone else believes it. While I can't speak for the others, I know that in my specific case, this is simply untrue.
TL;DR - Mom! Everyone on the internet thinks I'm wrong about something! :stomps feet:
Perhaps? You either were, or you weren't and you know which. You also know (if not Jof) whom you were referring to. Clarify, as you are the only one who can. For the sake of clarity.0 -
Sure you can. And I can comment on it.
And thus, the OP's beliefs.
No, you don't get extra points. But what's the big deal if a group of folks want to call themselves something, and eat with nutrition as the center of their decision making?
Nope. I don't think there's consensus that our bodies absorb the nutrients from vitamins in pill form the same as food, and there are many more nutrients (using that term broadly) than the average person's "One a day" supplies.And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
malnutrition is extremely rare in the western diet. extremely rare. so the presumption that a so-called nutritarian diet provides a richer dietary intake of micronutrients seems a bit spurious to me.
i think this is the point reality_is_harsh is making. you don't get extra credit for eating more micronutrients than your body can actually use.
Yes, that is my point.
Why all the snark toward the OP? That's my point.
the snark is not aimed at the OP. it's aimed at the crackpot Dr. who cooked up this "theory" to try and sell books.
So we can't be snarky about something we find ridiculous because it might be a part of someone's beliefs?
Get ready everyone, snark is not longer allowed.
EVER.
Also, it's sad that something like nutrition has to be talked about in terms of belief. I like to think that nutrition can be approached from a rational standpoint, not something that cannot be proven and thus needs to be believed.
Congrats, you have successfully derailed this thread into "You are not the boss of me."
And -I- was called the snarky one.0 -
People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.
I agree with this. I also think that a lot of people would be surprised about what their diet is actually composed of. It took me awhile to discover that liking, buying and serving my kids a varied diet didn't mean that i was getting the diet I needed
Eta - MFP is a great solution for this.0 -
People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.
^^^^ true
and also, people on many kinds of faddy diets massively overfocus on micronutrients at the expense of macronutrients, so you get conversations like this:
die hard fad diet zealot: But I get so many micronutrients, I'm so healthy, blah blah blah
realist: your diet doesn't give you the full range of essential amino acids though, and the total amount of protein is too low
*die hard fad diet zealot then launches into a tirade about how humans don't need all the essential amino acids or all that much protein or tries to claim humans are herbivores or that protein is the cause of all human mortality... etc etc etc, and how their diet's going to make them healthier because of all the micronutrients*
the same thing applies with low carb and low fat diets........ people claim these macronutrients are harmful and people are better off without them..... all three macronutrients are maligned by various different diets (though usually not all three at once by the same diet) and their importance in the human diet downplayed or even outright denied, and the comeback is always that the diet is rich in micronutrients and the person promoting the diet seems to think that more micronutrients can make up for a lack of macronutrients.......... fact is though that you'll become malnourished a lot more quickly on a diet that gives you inadequate macronutrients than you will on a diet with inadequate micronutrients.0 -
Me!!!!! Plant based here!!!!! Open diary!!!!!
Only thing I won't give up is my Greek yogurt and hot cocoa and Stevia
Other than those things plant based all the way I even make my own peanut butter no added sugars
Do you seriously frequently eat <50g of protein daily??? And frequently <20g fat???
Egads.
In addition to worrying about the damage you have done in the past (per your motto on your profile page), you may also want to give some strong consideration about the present and future.
I believe protein is overrated I have a number of reasons I believe this! The China study is one reason. If u want glowing skin and energy for days try a plant based diet. It is hard and scary to break away from the old ways of things though! So it may not be for you!
Good luck on your journey
^^^ Quod erat demonstrandum (referring to my last post above)0 -
I think it means eating at least 90% plant foods. And 10% animal products like meat, milk, eggs.
That's a very different definition than the one that OP (or someone else?) offered on page one.
Perhaps this is like "paleo" where there are drastically different definitions/interpretations of it.
My interpretation is what it says in the link.
What link? This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritarian where I see no reference to 10% re animal products.
Either way, I still argue that there now appear to be *at least* two distinct definitions/interpretations of the word...as evidenced by posts in this very thread.
Perhaps Dr. Fuhrman will jump in and clarify.
unintentional pun?
the guy is a nutter. he once went 46 days ingesting nothing but water in an attempt to cure a heel injury because he didn't want top undergo surgery on it.
total biology fail *facepalm*
but now I'm curious as to what actual beliefs he held at the time that made that seem like a logical way to treat a heel injury
who knows? i can't imagine anyone with half a brain would go along withy 46 days of ingesting nothing but water as a way of curing a heel injury though. :laugh:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/your-disease-your-fault/
thanks for the article link.... very interesting. I think that is what these diets are really peddling... i.e. the idea that they can control their own morbidity and mortality by just changing their diet....
what's interesting is that the paleo diet follows a pretty similar mentality (not including those who do it for food allergy/intolerance avoidance... I'm talking about those who follow it because they think that it has these elusive and ill-definable health benefits to everyone)........because palaeolithic people had pretty much no control whatsoever over morbidity and mortality, certainly exponentially less than the control we have over it nowadays. They likely only had a tribe shaman or medicine woman or similar i.e. knowledge of a handful of herbal remedies for simple ailments and a lot of superstition, and being basically at the mercy of fate. And lower palaeolithic people probably didn't have anything more than a concerned relative to bring you food and water and hope that you lived (there is archaeological evidence that even lower palaeolithic people (Oldowan level of culture, i.e. Dmanisi, Georgia) looked after vulnerable members of the group, but their cranial capacity was not that much more than the average chimpanzee's).......... there are some ways that palaeolithic people were healthier than modern people, i.e. because they got regular exercise, fresh air and plenty of exposure to sunlight, but that's about as far as it goes... I guess that the whole of human evolution has included a struggle to try to control some aspects of mortality and morbidity, but I really think that modern medicine, which is science based and backed up by peer-reviewed research, while not being perfect (because we don't know everything) is the best thing we have for preventing people from dying young. And yes this includes a healthy lifestyle, which comes from the one promoted by medical science, i.e. be active, and eat a balanced diet.0 -
Never heard of it but interested in this thread :flowerforyou:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions