looking for nutritarian friends

145791012

Replies

  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    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.

    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. :)
    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?
    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.
    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.

    This is MFP after all.
    Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,971 Member
    Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.
    Don't forget the kittens. They get offended easily when ignored.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,971 Member
    Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.
    Don't forget the kittens. They get offended easily when ignored.

    That was a given when I said "gifs".
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    Meh, I am just going to go back to snark and hilarious gifs. More rewarding.
    Don't forget the kittens. They get offended easily when ignored.

    That was a given when I said "gifs".
    My bad. :flowerforyou:
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    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.
    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.

    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."
    Can the 5'1 62 year old? Her "discretionary" calorie allotment would be pretty small.
    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.
    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. :-)
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    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.

    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. :)
    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?
    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.
    And thus, the OP's beliefs.

    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?
    :flowerforyou:
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,538 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    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.

    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. :)
    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?
    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.
    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.

    This is MFP after all.
    Indeed. And it's never a surprise. Group think is alive and well on the inter webs.

    Actually, the first 15 were all supportive.
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,538 Member
    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.
    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.

    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."
    Can the 5'1 62 year old? Her "discretionary" calorie allotment would be pretty small.
    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.
    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. :-)

    Well, now you are.... :)
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,167 Member
    People think they need a lot more micronutrients than they actually do, IMO.
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,950 Member
    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.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,426 Member
    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.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,167 Member
    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.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,426 Member
    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:
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    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 I wasn't speaking of you.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,426 Member
    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 I wasn't speaking of you.

    Irrelevant. My post applies to anyone who cries "group think" as a defense, whether or not I'm a member of the "group".
  • jrose1982
    jrose1982 Posts: 366 Member
    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).
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,270 Member
    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 I wasn't speaking of you.

    Irrelevant. My post applies to anyone who cries "group think" as a defense, whether or not I'm a member of the "group".
    If you say so.
  • Strokingdiction
    Strokingdiction Posts: 1,164 Member
    And isnt most of this discussion rendered moot because of vitamin supplements?
    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.

    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. :)
    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?
    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.
    And thus, the OP's beliefs.

    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.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,426 Member
    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?