Why do people seem to bash "healthy"eating?
Replies
-
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.
But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?
how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….
It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!
Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.
Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).
I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..
I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.
Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).
I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.
Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.
I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.
I find it interesting how many people are MFP members but don't use the primary tool of MFP. If I wasn't tracking calories, no way would I be here since the entire premise of this site is centered around tracking calories. (Note, I'm not saying that tracking calories is essential, but it's a key component...and I'm also not saying that people *shouldn't* be here if they aren't tracking, I just find it interesting.)
For me tracking calories is a ball ache.
MFP is so much more than just a calorie counter.
If you only use it for that then great at least you're getting benefit from it.
It's more than that, and yet it's still centered around that. The forums assume that others are using that particular tool...so the advice in the forums reflect that fact. The other members to be on your FL to provide all those motivations and supports? Most of them track calories. It's a reasonable assumption that any topic will be in the context of tracking calories.
Like I said, I just find it interesting.
In regards to the FL I enjoy the interaction and support. I run through it everyday and leave messages of support where appropriate.
I don't but in on threads where people are asking for advice on calorie counting or IIFYM (I'm not a LCHF recruiter) unlike a lot of the IIFYM group how seem to take it as a personal affront when someone considers leaving the fold.
I tend to stick to low carb - keto threads. Or the threads where people are looking for advice on cutting back on sugar (as I have done this myself I feel I can offer a suggestion).
If someone is not asking about LCHF diets I don't mention it, if they are I do.
Just because I do not count calories now doesn't mean I do not have a perspective on it - as I have done it in the past (unsuccessfully as it didn't suit my needs).0 -
For me, wanting to know if it's a fringe benefit that doesn't apply to me (or could even be detrimental) versus good evidence it is worth me doing certainly isn't "wanting too much".I know what antioxidants do and I believe they are beneficial - that's good enough for me.
To me that's a "sensible decision making process"
.
Now, if the situation regarding misinformation in this field was different, I might accept the point of "wanting too much".
Unfortunately, as it is, not only is there a massive amount of distracting and badly used 'information' out there, but a lot of people try and make money for abusing said information to get people viewing their media - which is usually done by significantly overplaying the like benefits or detriments on a particular food or activity.
Well if you come across convincing evidence that anti oxidants aren't beneficial to include into your diet, please feel free to pass it down the line.
Until then I will continue to enjoy them (red wine and dark chocolate) even if the benefits are minimal I'll enjoy consuming them.0 -
I don't know what you eat, but I suspect you may well get plenty of them anyway in your diet before the wine and chocolate.Well if you come across convincing evidence that anti oxidants aren't beneficial to include into your diet, please feel free to pass it down the line.
Until then I will continue to enjoy them (red wine and dark chocolate) even if the benefits are minimal I'll enjoy consuming them.
Personally, as above, I'd consider it pretty silly to include foods in your diet just because there *could* be a health benefits.
Because you enjoy consuming them and they fit your general goals - THAT however, I would take as an excellent reason. 0 -
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.
But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?
how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….
It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!
Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.
Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).
I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..
I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.
Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).
I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.
Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.
I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.
if I cut out carbs I would be a miserable, cranky, tired mess and my gym performance would go in the tank….
that being said, the fact that you do not count calories does not make it not "sustainable"..I have a feeling that plenty of people doing LCHF diets log their calories ….I have some low carbers on my FL and they log their calories…
so I still fail to see how calorie counting is not sustainable….you could do LCHF and log your calories, you just choose not to, which is fine but that does not make it unsustainable...0 -
I don't know what you eat, but I suspect you may well get plenty of them anyway in your diet before the wine and chocolate.Well if you come across convincing evidence that anti oxidants aren't beneficial to include into your diet, please feel free to pass it down the line.
Until then I will continue to enjoy them (red wine and dark chocolate) even if the benefits are minimal I'll enjoy consuming them.
Personally, as above, I'd consider it pretty silly to include foods in your diet just because there *could* be a health benefits.
Because you enjoy consuming them and they fit your general goals - THAT however, I would take as an excellent reason.
You're right I do get plenty of them - mainly in my veggies carrots etc.0 -
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.
But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?
how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….
It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!
Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.
Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).
I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..
I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.
Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).
I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.
Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.
I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.
if I cut out carbs I would be a miserable, cranky, tired mess and my gym performance would go in the tank….
that being said, the fact that you do not count calories does not make it not "sustainable"..I have a feeling that plenty of people doing LCHF diets log their calories ….I have some low carbers on my FL and they log their calories…
so I still fail to see how calorie counting is not sustainable….you could do LCHF and log your calories, you just choose not to, which is fine but that does not make it unsustainable...
Calorie counting unsustainable - just look beyond MFP (a majority of members will be having great success with it and long may that continue) but the ones that start it and find it unsustainable normally leave MFP.
In regards to people doing LCHF and calorie counting, I should think there are lots.
If I didn't hate logging and weighting my food I would probably do it as now I have less appetite I doubt I would still be hungry once I hit my calorie target.
The fact I am comfortably losing weight though would probably mean I'm intuitively eating in a deficit quite well though.
As I've said for the past couple of months I have nothing against calorie counting, it's just not everyone's cup of tea and not is low carb.0 -
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.
But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?
how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….
It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!
Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.
Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).
I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..
I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.
Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).
I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.
Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.
I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.
if I cut out carbs I would be a miserable, cranky, tired mess and my gym performance would go in the tank….
that being said, the fact that you do not count calories does not make it not "sustainable"..I have a feeling that plenty of people doing LCHF diets log their calories ….I have some low carbers on my FL and they log their calories…
so I still fail to see how calorie counting is not sustainable….you could do LCHF and log your calories, you just choose not to, which is fine but that does not make it unsustainable...
Calorie counting unsustainable - just look beyond MFP (a majority of members will be having great success with it and long may that continue) but the ones that start it and find it unsustainable normally leave MFP.
In regards to people doing LCHF and calorie counting, I should think there are lots.
If I didn't hate logging and weighting my food I would probably do it as now I have less appetite I doubt I would still be hungry once I hit my calorie target.
The fact I am comfortably losing weight though would probably mean I'm intuitively eating in a deficit quite well though.
As I've said for the past couple of months I have nothing against calorie counting, it's just not everyone's cup of tea and not is low carb.
I agree with you on the calorie counting. Calorie counting is a great tool to help in weight loss and possibly weight gain, and it aids in learning portion size but I don't see calorie counting as being a sustainable way of eating for the rest of one's life. I think that calorie counting for an extended period of time has the potential to create an unhealthy relationship with food. Think of calorie counting as training wheels when learning to ride a bicycle. Once you've mastered the balancing skills, you no longer need the training wheels.0 -
I don't know what you eat, but I suspect you may well get plenty of them anyway in your diet before the wine and chocolate.Well if you come across convincing evidence that anti oxidants aren't beneficial to include into your diet, please feel free to pass it down the line.
Until then I will continue to enjoy them (red wine and dark chocolate) even if the benefits are minimal I'll enjoy consuming them.
Personally, as above, I'd consider it pretty silly to include foods in your diet just because there *could* be a health benefits.
Because you enjoy consuming them and they fit your general goals - THAT however, I would take as an excellent reason.
No doubt. I eat dark chocolate...(Green & Black's 85%)...and drink wine because it's delicious. If it happens to be good for me, then bonus.0 -
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.
But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?
how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….
It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!
Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.
Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).
I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..
I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.
Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).
I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.
Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.
I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.
if I cut out carbs I would be a miserable, cranky, tired mess and my gym performance would go in the tank….
that being said, the fact that you do not count calories does not make it not "sustainable"..I have a feeling that plenty of people doing LCHF diets log their calories ….I have some low carbers on my FL and they log their calories…
so I still fail to see how calorie counting is not sustainable….you could do LCHF and log your calories, you just choose not to, which is fine but that does not make it unsustainable...
Calorie counting unsustainable - just look beyond MFP (a majority of members will be having great success with it and long may that continue) but the ones that start it and find it unsustainable normally leave MFP.
In regards to people doing LCHF and calorie counting, I should think there are lots.
If I didn't hate logging and weighting my food I would probably do it as now I have less appetite I doubt I would still be hungry once I hit my calorie target.
The fact I am comfortably losing weight though would probably mean I'm intuitively eating in a deficit quite well though.
As I've said for the past couple of months I have nothing against calorie counting, it's just not everyone's cup of tea and not is low carb.
I agree with you on the calorie counting. Calorie counting is a great tool to help in weight loss and possibly weight gain, and it aids in learning portion size but I don't see calorie counting as being a sustainable way of eating for the rest of one's life. I think that calorie counting for an extended period of time has the potential to create an unhealthy relationship with food. Think of calorie counting as training wheels when learning to ride a bicycle. Once you've mastered the balancing skills, you no longer need the training wheels.
Possibly??? It is essential (IMHO).
And your training wheel analogy? Why? What is wrong with counting calories for an extended period of time? I've been doing it for almost three years. What danger am I in?0 -
Well, at least you acknowledge that this is your own failure.I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
Boy, talk about snarky! All I did was ask a question. I'm so glad that you know it all. Puts the rest of us to shame, I guess...0 -
I would expect to see a question mark at the end of that sentence if it was a question - it seemed more like a statement to me.
Why do you think it can not possibly be healthy?
Which aspects do you consider to be 'unhealthy'?0 -
Well, at least you acknowledge that this is your own failure.I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
Boy, talk about snarky! All I did was ask a question. I'm so glad that you know it all. Puts the rest of us to shame, I guess...
You ask a ridiculously loaded question and you expect something other than snark?0 -
I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
I think a lot of the people who get really extreme in bashing healthy eating are either doing it to seem smart/be jerks, or because they think when you mean healthy (or clean, or whatever healthy eating plan you're talking about) you mean 100% healthy 100% of the time with no wiggle room. They often seem to assume healthy means absolutely no room for unhealthy, when the truth is that most of the people I've seen who are on these kinds of healthy eating plans tend to say they follow an 80/20 rule, or a 90/10 rule, etc. They try to eat as healthy as possible most of the time but don't feel guilty if they have a treat now and then, because it's not going to hurt them and probably helps their quality of life to enjoy things they love even if they're not healthy.
I doubt anyone (or almost anyone) is actually advocating never ever ever eating a single unhealthy thing again. Sure, some people will 100% give up a particular unhealthy food, whether it's breads, or ice cream, or pizza or whatever. And if they can do that and still be totally happy, then all the power to them. If you can't, then that's fine. Everyone's going to be different. And while you may never have an issue giving up chocolate, that might be what they eat as a treat. It's not being extreme to say you're giving up a food entirely if you can do so and still be healthy and happy; why WOULDN'T you cut out something unhealthy if there were no negative repercussions on yourself? I'd personally cut out all of those treat foods if I'd never miss them, etc. because my diet would be much healthier that way. But the truth is for me I do enjoy many of those foods and thus am ok making room for them in my otherwise healthy diet. But there are some foods I don't miss at all - bread for instance. It's been essentially completely eliminated from my diet and I'm 100% happy with that. Does that make me extreme? I don't think so.
Eating healthy IS something everyone should idealistically strive for because it will increase your health. But everyone's healthy diet will be different, and I doubt anyone's arguing for a 100% nothing but healthy foods diet 100% of the time. Unfortunately the healthy bashers seem to think that's all that healthy can possibly mean.0 -
I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
I think a lot of the people who get really extreme in bashing healthy eating are either doing it to seem smart/be jerks, or because they think when you mean healthy (or clean, or whatever healthy eating plan you're talking about) you mean 100% healthy 100% of the time with no wiggle room. They often seem to assume healthy means absolutely no room for unhealthy, when the truth is that most of the people I've seen who are on these kinds of healthy eating plans tend to say they follow an 80/20 rule, or a 90/10 rule, etc. They try to eat as healthy as possible most of the time but don't feel guilty if they have a treat now and then, because it's not going to hurt them and probably helps their quality of life to enjoy things they love even if they're not healthy.
I doubt anyone (or almost anyone) is actually advocating never ever ever eating a single unhealthy thing again. Sure, some people will 100% give up a particular unhealthy food, whether it's breads, or ice cream, or pizza or whatever. And if they can do that and still be totally happy, then all the power to them. If you can't, then that's fine. Everyone's going to be different. And while you may never have an issue giving up chocolate, that might be what they eat as a treat. It's not being extreme to say you're giving up a food entirely if you can do so and still be healthy and happy; why WOULDN'T you cut out something unhealthy if there were no negative repercussions on yourself? I'd personally cut out all of those treat foods if I'd never miss them, etc. because my diet would be much healthier that way. But the truth is for me I do enjoy many of those foods and thus am ok making room for them in my otherwise healthy diet. But there are some foods I don't miss at all - bread for instance. It's been essentially completely eliminated from my diet and I'm 100% happy with that. Does that make me extreme? I don't think so.
Eating healthy IS something everyone should idealistically strive for because it will increase your health. But everyone's healthy diet will be different, and I doubt anyone's arguing for a 100% nothing but healthy foods diet 100% of the time. Unfortunately the healthy bashers seem to think that's all that healthy can possibly mean.
I am still waiting to find out who those "health bashers" are?????
I have never seen anyone call someone out for eating healthy ….or say "well you should really just 100% of your diet from twinkies.."0 -
Eating and food culture are emotionally-laden parts of the human experience. People want to eat food that makes the me feel good and makes them happy and is part of a shared experience. This point about moderation is allowing people to eat whatever their mom makes for family gatherings, and to participate in nights out with friends, office birthday parties, eating their favorite foods alone on a Saturday night. Yeah, a person could opt out of all of those situations but people don't want to they want to get joy from food. So moderation, calorie counting, macro monitoring is the key. Allow yourself, within your calorie limits, the foods you love.
There is a huge diet industry that casts some food as sinful or tells people NEVER eat THIS FOOD. There are people who post on these forums about they have 600 calories left out of 1400 for the day because they've cut out anything that's been in vogue as a "bad food" recently, stuff like any meat, dairy, starchy veggies. That sounds like an exaggeration of the situation but it is truly not. Eat whatever you want in moderation aka cico aka iifym is to counteract these simplistic and potentially harmful ideas that are being sold. Basically no food is evil. You can have ice cream everyday if it's in your caloric budge, or have half a pizza on the weekend.
I just don't agree that people on MFP encourage the consumption of processed and fast food in excessive portions. It's more like, eat a treat before you snap and go on a binge, and then count your calories so you can work out more or eat a lighter dinner. It's pragmatism.
It sounds like you're saying that processed foods cause more weight gain on a calorie for calorie basis compared to non-processed foods. I think this is kind of common notion, since lots of people are concerned about "clean eating" and if this or that food counts as "clean". But I don't think it's true-- or I've never seen good evidence that it is.I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.0 -
I think people like to bash anything that allows them to justify their own view or to continue doing things that aren't supported by the facts or science. Facts do change as more information becomes available, but people don't adapt anywhere as quickly with their beliefs and biases. That goes for diet, fitness, nutrition, smoking, drinking, global warming, politics, etc...
People that want to justify eating crap for most if not all of their diet and not see any connections to their short term or long term health and fitness can bash what they don't agree with and continue to be "fat, dumb, and happy".
So how would it affect your worldview if those people eating what they liked but less of it were, you know, actually losing weight and keeping it off?
That's fine in the short term or if that's all your goal is, but weight loss alone doesn't equate to fitness. It's a challenge to get all of your needed nutrients and stay within your calories when you use up half of them on junk low in nutrition.
Does eating good and real food over the long run really make a difference? I'm betting it does and I want to do what I can to stay fit and healthy well into my later years. If doing what you can to try and live longer and healthier is of no interest to you, that's your choice.0 -
I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
It's how cheap food is that has made the US and other similar countries gain so much weight not the fact that it's processed.
Widely available, widely affordable = widening waistlines0 -
IMO, the hundreds of threads asking 'how clean is X?' are a big pain, and I can understand why people get frustrated at seeing it over and over. Is a factory-produced protein bar clean enough to pass my healthy lips? Is a calorie from a pizza somehow stickier than a calorie from a grape?
It honestly just sounds like people want to be told what they're allowed to eat, using 'clean' as the umbrella term for the latest quick-fix crash diet, instead of figuring out habits and patterns that work for their beliefs and lifestyle. And those 'what am I allowed to eat' diets definitely do not have a long-term success rate.
Those people who make the decision to cut out whatever foods they think are damaging, aim to be healthy as much as possible (i.e 80/20) and who know they can sustain their habits for a lifetime seem to just be caught in the crossfire when it comes to the 'clean' people vs. the IIFYM people.0 -
I think that eating all the crazy food America has to offer in moderation can help one lose weight. It keeps us sane and not from going nuts because we are living off of salad, quinoa and almonds. It's sustainable and moderation in my opinion is the key to success.0
-
IMO, the hundreds of threads asking 'how clean is X?' are a big pain, and I can understand why people get frustrated at seeing it over and over. Is a factory-produced protein bar clean enough to pass my healthy lips? Is a calorie from a pizza somehow stickier than a calorie from a grape?
It honestly just sounds like people want to be told what they're allowed to eat, using 'clean' as the umbrella term for the latest quick-fix crash diet, instead of figuring out habits and patterns that work for their beliefs and lifestyle. And those 'what am I allowed to eat' diets definitely do not have a long-term success rate.
This. If someone is saying why shouldn't I just be able to choose what I consider a good and healthy diet for me and follow it, well of course no one should tell them not to. I think this is the ideal, and I somewhat differ from the common idea here that just eating less is better than too much change, because for me this works better if about something positive and not just deprivation, which for some people could be achieved by trying to eat healthier overall or cook more, etc.
But when people say "can I eat this," as if there were external rules, or seem to think "eating clean" is required for weight loss or ask why they aren't losing and get people jumping in and saying it's bc they are eating sugar or processed food or whatever (and lots of people saying other things of course) there are other things going on. I guess I haven't seen just trying to eat a balanced or overall healthy diet be jumped on, although granted I'm new.0 -
as someone who has lived outside the us, I can attest to this. not only that, the us, it seems, does not have a sense of portioning. I think it is brought about by the lack of family style.servingI've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
It's how cheap food is that has made the US and other similar countries gain so much weight not the fact that it's processed.
Widely available, widely affordable = widening waistlines0 -
People confuse being healthy with losing weight, it's not the same thing0
-
People also confuse eating so called healthy foods with being the best way to "be healthy". From what I've seen, that's not the same thing either.People confuse being healthy with losing weight, it's not the same thing
As it goes, there is a VERY strong correlation (hell, I think we can say causation) between losing weight and improved health.0 -
as someone who has lived outside the us, I can attest to this. not only that, the us, it seems, does not have a sense of portioning. I think it is brought about by the lack of family style.servingI've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
It's how cheap food is that has made the US and other similar countries gain so much weight not the fact that it's processed.
Widely available, widely affordable = widening waistlines
Add the fact that people on average don't move around as much anymore as they used to.
Though I must say I'm sometimes jealous of how cheap some foods in the USA are.0 -
People also confuse eating so called healthy foods with being the best way to "be healthy". From what I've seen, that's not the same thing either.People confuse being healthy with losing weight, it's not the same thing
As it goes, there is a VERY strong correlation (hell, I think we can say causation) between losing weight and improved health.
Agreed, it's overall diet and fitness.
But just like diet it's the same with fitness, not all exercises are created equal and when you've got limited time in the gym it's about making the best choices.0 -
What amuses me is that people will spend many hours working out how to 'do' the latest fad which tries to disguise getting a balanced diet behind some mumbo jumbo, then actually buying and preparing the food - when likely if they'd just, say, had a run or cycle ride to the nearest fast food joint, it's quite possible the overall effect would be they were healthier. They may even have some time left to research into the science behind nutrition and workout what actually matters. 0
-
as someone who has lived outside the us, I can attest to this. not only that, the us, it seems, does not have a sense of portioning. I think it is brought about by the lack of family style.servingI've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.
I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.
Just wondering.....
It's how cheap food is that has made the US and other similar countries gain so much weight not the fact that it's processed.
Widely available, widely affordable = widening waistlines
Add the fact that people on average don't move around as much anymore as they used to.
Though I must say I'm sometimes jealous of how cheap some foods in the USA are.
I totally agree.. when a single avocado costs 4-5 dollars you get jealous sometimes.0 -
What amuses me is that people will spend many hours working out how to 'do' the latest fad which tries to disguise getting a balanced diet behind some mumbo jumbo, then actually buying and preparing the food - when likely if they'd just, say, had a run or cycle ride to the nearest fast food joint, it's quite possible the overall effect would be they were healthier. They may even have some time left to research into the science behind nutrition and workout what actually matters.
I personally thinks it's the other way around.
Weighting and logging food, worrying about how many calories I have left, what meals would fit into that amount of calories (will that food give me the micro nutrients I still need to eat for that day etc.).
My personal experience is I did the research the end of last year before I embarked on LCHF.
I know the food I am eating is generally high in my daily micro nutrients. I get most of my carbs from veggies.
I'm not having to record anything I eat - I just eat when I am hungry.
I know what my go to food is for snacks (nut's generally, or greek yoghurt), most of my main meals are quite simple - Protein (meat), fat (from meat) and carbs (veg).
Outside of that, if I feel the urge (and I am willing to pay the calorie price) I will have some chocolate or any other type of junk food I fancy at the time.
If anything I think my particular diet allows me to put very little mental effort into it and allows me to eat instinctively and not have to worry or stress about things.0 -
I would say it is the opposite.. it seems there have to be people to PROVE that you CAN lose weight withOUT clean eating because every time you see a post about healthy "clean" eating it is always saying things like "OMG I can't believe you would put that crap you in your body" or "You can't expect to consume things like sugar and lose weight". It isn't true. You CAN.
Mind you, I have always said "more power to you if you do the clean eating thing" but it isn't for everyone and it is is NOT a requirement. I kind of get sick of the posts trying to shame people who DON'T do it. It is kind of like religion, to each their own. Religion doesn't equal morals and you can still have them without it. Same for clean eating or not... one can still lose weight.0 -
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.
But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?
how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….
It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!
Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.
Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).
I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..
I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.
Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).
I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.
Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.
I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.
if I cut out carbs I would be a miserable, cranky, tired mess and my gym performance would go in the tank….
that being said, the fact that you do not count calories does not make it not "sustainable"..I have a feeling that plenty of people doing LCHF diets log their calories ….I have some low carbers on my FL and they log their calories…
so I still fail to see how calorie counting is not sustainable….you could do LCHF and log your calories, you just choose not to, which is fine but that does not make it unsustainable...
Calorie counting unsustainable - just look beyond MFP (a majority of members will be having great success with it and long may that continue) but the ones that start it and find it unsustainable normally leave MFP.
In regards to people doing LCHF and calorie counting, I should think there are lots.
If I didn't hate logging and weighting my food I would probably do it as now I have less appetite I doubt I would still be hungry once I hit my calorie target.
The fact I am comfortably losing weight though would probably mean I'm intuitively eating in a deficit quite well though.
As I've said for the past couple of months I have nothing against calorie counting, it's just not everyone's cup of tea and not is low carb.
I agree with you on the calorie counting. Calorie counting is a great tool to help in weight loss and possibly weight gain, and it aids in learning portion size but I don't see calorie counting as being a sustainable way of eating for the rest of one's life. I think that calorie counting for an extended period of time has the potential to create an unhealthy relationship with food. Think of calorie counting as training wheels when learning to ride a bicycle. Once you've mastered the balancing skills, you no longer need the training wheels.
Possibly??? It is essential (IMHO).
And your training wheel analogy? Why? What is wrong with counting calories for an extended period of time? I've been doing it for almost three years. What danger am I in?
Possibly, yes if intentionally trying to gain weight. It's amazing how many folk gain weight with very little effort other than over eating, no calorie counting needed :huh:
Counting calories for an extended period of time has the potential of creating an unhealthy relationship with food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions