Why do people seem to bash "healthy"eating?
Replies
-
Because people keep posting in it?
People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
And some people need to be more precise with their word choices.
I'm going to go with more precise.
Wittgenstein was right when he said that most philosophical differences would be resolved if people's language was more precise...
If it weren't for the fact that Wittgenstein, himself, refuted his picture theory of language for a more fluid, experience and practice based theory....
He was entitled to be wrong at that point given his fine earlier work.
I'll let him off...0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
And some people need to be more precise with their word choices.
I'm going to go with more precise.
Wittgenstein was right when he said that most philosophical differences would be resolved if people's language was more precise...
If it weren't for the fact that Wittgenstein, himself, refuted his picture theory of language for a more fluid, experience and practice based theory....
He was entitled to be wrong at that point given his fine earlier work.
I'll let him off...
:laugh:
(Isn't it fascinating how many philosophers (and scientists and theologians and mathematicians and similar) question their own teachings and beliefs very late in their own lives?)0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
Well, there is certainly evidence that sugar is harmful to the body. It seems to me that anyone can become addicted to anything that releases endorphins because it makes them feel good and they want to continue feeling good. The root cause of any addition is chemical as the chemicals in the brain that cause the person to want more of that feeling.0 -
sugar = most stuff that ends in -ose.0
-
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Here's the thing though. I know it exists, because I've been there and went through it. Sugar packets? Nah. My delivery method of choice was Coke. Typically a 12 pack a day or more, for many years. I just about existed on sugar intake alone. Couldn't sleep at night because I had so much sugar pumping through me, again for many years. There was never a need to carry sugar packets because what I needed was only a 2 minute car trip away
I broke that cycle by going as low-sugar as possible at the start. No soda, no fruit, no bread. Anything that had a good bit of sugar went, and I felt like hammered *kitten* for a few days until my body adjusted. I've worked the fruit back in and have a Coke Zero about once a day or so now, and feel like a brand new person. I can respect differing opinions, but on this one, anyone who hasn't gone through that particular fight and wants to dismiss it as non-existant can quite frankly kiss my a**0 -
:laugh:
(Isn't it fascinating how many philosophers (and scientists and theologians and mathematicians and similar) question their own teachings and beliefs very late in their own lives?)
Lulz - the whole "Road to Damascus" type thing.
Never trust someone who has never changed their mind or has claimed never to be wrong 0 -
He was entitled to be wrong at that point given his fine earlier work.
I'll let him off...
:laugh:
(Isn't it fascinating how many philosophers (and scientists and theologians and mathematicians and similar) question their own teachings and beliefs very late in their own lives?)
I think a real philosopher would be constantly questioning- and truly revising all the time.
I would doubt anyone who claimed to be so without every having reconsidered anything they ever said.0 -
was it plato or aristotle that questioned his philosophical ideas in his late life0
-
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Here's the thing though. I know it exists, because I've been there and went through it. Sugar packets? Nah. My delivery method of choice was Coke. Typically a 12 pack a day or more, for many years. I just about existed on sugar intake alone. Couldn't sleep at night because I had so much sugar pumping through me, again for many years. There was never a need to carry sugar packets because what I needed was only a 2 minute car trip away
I broke that cycle by going as low-sugar as possible at the start. No soda, no fruit, no bread. Anything that had a good bit of sugar went, and I felt like hammered *kitten* for a few days until my body adjusted. I've worked the fruit back in and have a Coke Zero about once a day or so now, and feel like a brand new person. I can respect differing opinions, but on this one, anyone who hasn't gone through that particular fight and wants to dismiss it as non-existant can quite frankly kiss my a**
You felt bad because of the well-known "low-carb flu". I don't believe that sugar is addictive (any more than having fun is addictive) and yet when I suddenly and drastically decrease my carbs, I will feel "off" at best and "awful" at worst. This has nothing to do with sugar and everything to do with carbs in general. Your n=1 experience does not refute this in any way.0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Here's the thing though. I know it exists, because I've been there and went through it. Sugar packets? Nah. My delivery method of choice was Coke. Typically a 12 pack a day or more, for many years. I just about existed on sugar intake alone. Couldn't sleep at night because I had so much sugar pumping through me, again for many years. There was never a need to carry sugar packets because what I needed was only a 2 minute car trip away
I broke that cycle by going as low-sugar as possible at the start. No soda, no fruit, no bread. Anything that had a good bit of sugar went, and I felt like hammered *kitten* for a few days until my body adjusted. I've worked the fruit back in and have a Coke Zero about once a day or so now, and feel like a brand new person. I can respect differing opinions, but on this one, anyone who hasn't gone through that particular fight and wants to dismiss it as non-existant can quite frankly kiss my a**
You felt bad because of the well-known "low-carb flu". I don't believe that sugar is addictive (any more than having fun is addictive) and yet when I suddenly and drastically decrease my carbs, I will feel "off" at best and "awful" at worst. This has nothing to do with sugar and everything to do with carbs in general. Your n=1 experience does not refute this in any way.
Who said I went low carb and hard low-carb flu? My carbs then and now are consistently around 100g a day. And fun can be addictive. Exercise can be addictive. Being obsessive at counting calories can be addicitve. Literally anything can be addicitve. there's no reason to dismiss peoples' experience just because it differs from your own.
Double-plus Edit: Before anyone accuses me of pushing my diet on others, I did what I had to do to get myself squared away. I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary or that anyone else must do things my way.0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Do you know any sugar junkies (for lack of a better term)? You would be surprised at how much sugar is kept within easy reach - candies in the glovebox, candies in the purse, chocolate bar in the purse, candy bowl on the table and desk, the sweets drawer, sweet drink in the car cupholder. So while they may not carry actual sugar packets although I know some who do, they carry sugar in other forms and have it close by all the time.0 -
Do you know any sugar junkies (for lack of a better term)? You would be surprised at how much sugar is kept within easy reach - candies in the glovebox, candies in the purse, chocolate bar in the purse, candy bowl on the table and desk, the sweets drawer, sweet drink in the car cupholder. So while they may not carry actual sugar packets although I know some who do, they carry sugar in other forms and have it close by all the time.
While I typically don't jump on the "sugar is totally addicting" (because I think people need to get a grip- even if they are addicted it's not an excuse to keep doing said thing)...
BUT
this is true.
People stash crap all over- in their car /purse- i'ts pretty common for people with food issues. Not sugar packets- but definitely "stuff"0 -
Do you know any sugar junkies (for lack of a better term)? You would be surprised at how much sugar is kept within easy reach - candies in the glovebox, candies in the purse, chocolate bar in the purse, candy bowl on the table and desk, the sweets drawer, sweet drink in the car cupholder. So while they may not carry actual sugar packets although I know some who do, they carry sugar in other forms and have it close by all the time.
While I typically don't jump on the "sugar is totally addicting" (because I think people need to get a grip- even if they are addicted it's not an excuse to keep doing said thing)...
BUT
this is true.
People stash crap all over- in their car /purse- i'ts pretty common for people with food issues. Not sugar packets- but definitely "stuff"
Now that I can fully agree with0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
Well, there is certainly evidence that sugar is harmful to the body. It seems to me that anyone can become addicted to anything that releases endorphins because it makes them feel good and they want to continue feeling good. The root cause of any addition is chemical as the chemicals in the brain that cause the person to want more of that feeling.
Yes, all humans are addicted to happiness on account of the glucose our bodies need to function. Sounds legit.0 -
:laugh:
(Isn't it fascinating how many philosophers (and scientists and theologians and mathematicians and similar) question their own teachings and beliefs very late in their own lives?)
Lulz - the whole "Road to Damascus" type thing.
Never trust someone who has never changed their mind or has claimed never to be wrong
Never trust absolutes. Or Absolutists.0 -
:laugh:
(Isn't it fascinating how many philosophers (and scientists and theologians and mathematicians and similar) question their own teachings and beliefs very late in their own lives?)
Lulz - the whole "Road to Damascus" type thing.
Never trust someone who has never changed their mind or has claimed never to be wrong
Never trust absolutes. Or Absolutists.
Always trust absolute esp when mixed with something yummy0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
Well, there is certainly evidence that sugar is harmful to the body. It seems to me that anyone can become addicted to anything that releases endorphins because it makes them feel good and they want to continue feeling good. The root cause of any addition is chemical as the chemicals in the brain that cause the person to want more of that feeling.
And isn't there evidence that too little sugar is also harmful to the body? Almost like there needs to be some context to the discussion0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
Well, there is certainly evidence that sugar is harmful to the body. It seems to me that anyone can become addicted to anything that releases endorphins because it makes them feel good and they want to continue feeling good. The root cause of any addition is chemical as the chemicals in the brain that cause the person to want more of that feeling.
And isn't there evidence that too little sugar is also harmful to the body? Almost like there needs to be some context to the discussion
By default, sugar addiction refers to too much sugar so the context is implied.0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
Well, there is certainly evidence that sugar is harmful to the body. It seems to me that anyone can become addicted to anything that releases endorphins because it makes them feel good and they want to continue feeling good. The root cause of any addition is chemical as the chemicals in the brain that cause the person to want more of that feeling.
And isn't there evidence that too little sugar is also harmful to the body? Almost like there needs to be some context to the discussion
By default, sugar addiction refers to too much sugar so the context is implied.
Oddly enough, at least here at MFP 100% of sugar addicts have subsequently stated they can indeed moderate their intake of sugar. Weird0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Here's the thing though. I know it exists, because I've been there and went through it. Sugar packets? Nah. My delivery method of choice was Coke. Typically a 12 pack a day or more, for many years. I just about existed on sugar intake alone. Couldn't sleep at night because I had so much sugar pumping through me, again for many years. There was never a need to carry sugar packets because what I needed was only a 2 minute car trip away
I broke that cycle by going as low-sugar as possible at the start. No soda, no fruit, no bread. Anything that had a good bit of sugar went, and I felt like hammered *kitten* for a few days until my body adjusted. I've worked the fruit back in and have a Coke Zero about once a day or so now, and feel like a brand new person. I can respect differing opinions, but on this one, anyone who hasn't gone through that particular fight and wants to dismiss it as non-existant can quite frankly kiss my a**
You felt bad because of the well-known "low-carb flu". I don't believe that sugar is addictive (any more than having fun is addictive) and yet when I suddenly and drastically decrease my carbs, I will feel "off" at best and "awful" at worst. This has nothing to do with sugar and everything to do with carbs in general. Your n=1 experience does not refute this in any way.
Who said I went low carb and hard low-carb flu? My carbs then and now are consistently around 100g a day. And fun can be addictive. Exercise can be addictive. Being obsessive at counting calories can be addicitve. Literally anything can be addicitve. there's no reason to dismiss peoples' experience just because it differs from your own.
Double-plus Edit: Before anyone accuses me of pushing my diet on others, I did what I had to do to get myself squared away. I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary or that anyone else must do things my way.
You cut out all soda, fruit and bread but kept your carbs the same? What did you eat instead to replace the carbs you weren't eating?0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Do you know any sugar junkies (for lack of a better term)? You would be surprised at how much sugar is kept within easy reach - candies in the glovebox, candies in the purse, chocolate bar in the purse, candy bowl on the table and desk, the sweets drawer, sweet drink in the car cupholder. So while they may not carry actual sugar packets although I know some who do, they carry sugar in other forms and have it close by all the time.
Wait. You actually know people who carry around sugar packets to feed their "addiction"?
:huh:0 -
My grandma carries around sugar packets for when her blood pressure drops low, or something. That or she might be an addict, I don't really know.0
-
My grandma carries around sugar packets for when her blood pressure drops low, or something. That or she might be an addict, I don't really know.
My husband carries around stevia packets. But that's because no one ever has any when he's out and wants to sweeten his coffee or tea.0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Do you know any sugar junkies (for lack of a better term)? You would be surprised at how much sugar is kept within easy reach - candies in the glovebox, candies in the purse, chocolate bar in the purse, candy bowl on the table and desk, the sweets drawer, sweet drink in the car cupholder. So while they may not carry actual sugar packets although I know some who do, they carry sugar in other forms and have it close by all the time.
Wait. You actually know people who carry around sugar packets to feed their "addiction"?
:huh:
I do. The person claims to like the feeling of sugar dissolving in their mouth.0 -
Just with the few threads that I have seen {about clean eating and Paleo}, they turned ugly. I still can’t wrap my head around it. I can understand why some would come onto a defense if said person was trying to ‘promote’ a way of eating ‘paleo, clean… etc’ but to come onto attack mode against someone asking simple questions to those who may be doing a similar thing as them is what I see as ‘bashing’.
In the end there is no ‘right or wrong’ way to lose weight. Whether you load up on fruits, veggies, nuts and meats all day or make a stop at McDonalds’ for lunch occasionally, but both still fit your calories within range, you will lose weight.
What I don’t understand is why someone would be criticized for their eating lifestyle, assuming there not trying to promote said lifestyle? Like for me, I don’t do these so called ‘cheat meals’, I don’t eat processed either. I don’t eat ice cream, or cookies when I am having a sweet tooth. Does that mean I am going at it the wrong way? No it doesn’t, it means I am doing what fits in with my own goals and lifestyle. Does that mean someone who does eat those things are wrong? No, it doesn’t, they know what their goals are and their needs and they fit the food in to meet those specifics.
From what I’ve been seeing, it hasn’t been so much a bash on ‘healthy’ food but a bash on how some people are going about their lifestyle change.0 -
Just with the few threads that I have seen {about clean eating and Paleo}, they turned ugly. I still can’t wrap my head around it. I can understand why some would come onto a defense if said person was trying to ‘promote’ a way of eating ‘paleo, clean… etc’ but to come onto attack mode against someone asking simple questions to those who may be doing a similar thing as them is what I see as ‘bashing’.
In the end there is no ‘right or wrong’ way to lose weight. Whether you load up on fruits, veggies, nuts and meats all day or make a stop at McDonalds’ for lunch occasionally, but both still fit your calories within range, you will lose weight.
What I don’t understand is why someone would be criticized for their eating lifestyle, assuming there not trying to promote said lifestyle? Like for me, I don’t do these so called ‘cheat meals’, I don’t eat processed either. I don’t eat ice cream, or cookies when I am having a sweet tooth. Does that mean I am going at it the wrong way? No it doesn’t, it means I am doing what fits in with my own goals and lifestyle. Does that mean someone who does eat those things are wrong? No, it doesn’t, they know what their goals are and their needs and they fit the food in to meet those specifics.
From what I’ve been seeing, it hasn’t been so much a bash on ‘healthy’ food but a bash on how some people are going about their lifestyle change.
It's a reaction to the word clean. Healthy eating is fine, but label it clean and it's an issue. Simple as that. If someone asks about a certain diet, or what they can do differently they are going to get a lot of answers. Those usually turn into "bash anyone not saying eat what you want in moderation" free for all. I have learned to just say "here's what I do, call it what you want, take it or leave it." and then to ignore anyone who tries to pick apart my chosen diet. what you eat and what dietary path you follow is entirely dependent on your body, your goals and your desired outcome. None of us can really say what is best for another.
not so funny story. I had someone hound me, to the point of emailing after I ignored them on the forums, about the lack of seafood in my diet. It's really none of their business why I don't eat it, but after I told them i'm allergic they told me I was wrong, i wasn't allergic, I just didn't' want to eat it and I should suck it up and incorporate shrimp because it's healthy and good for me. That kind of crap is ridiculous.0 -
Because people keep posting in it?People want to eat healthy food, so what?
Some people want to claim "their" food choices are specifically "healthy" and others not.
Me, I think that's a narrow minded "unhealthy" concept that isn't congruent with reality.generally.
Maybe you are the one with the unhealthy obsession with the word.
Just because one food is healthy it doesn't mean that food that are not healthy are unhealthy.
Maybe people need to be less literal with their interpretation of words.
Tell that to the people who come here posting about "addictive" sugar, "toxic" processed foods, "poison" grains, and on and on.
The other stuff I'll give you, but sugar addiction is a thing. One can become addicted to literally anything. No chemical component needed. Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up and there's certainly no checmical component or anything even remotely attractive about that.
Same old tired argument. Still not true. :yawn:
ad·dic·tion
noun \ə-ˈdik-shən, a-\
: a strong and harmful need to regularly have something (such as a drug) or do something (such as gamble)
: an unusually great interest in something or a need to do or have something
Go have it out with Merriam-Webster then, and stop wasting people's time with snarky nonsense.
First off, if sugar were truly addictive, then those addicted to sugar would be walking around with sugar packets in their pockets to be prepared for when they need their next fix. Funny how no one does that.
That said, you can say "addicted to [insert food]" casually as in "man I really can't stop myself from eating that thing." But words have power. People who seemingly can't control their ability to stop eating something can either fall back on that mythical "addiction" and be powerless, or they can butch up and decide to stop eating that thing or learn to moderate their intake.
So there's some logic to go with my snarky nonsense. I suspect you will respond in about the same way.
Here's the thing though. I know it exists, because I've been there and went through it. Sugar packets? Nah. My delivery method of choice was Coke. Typically a 12 pack a day or more, for many years. I just about existed on sugar intake alone. Couldn't sleep at night because I had so much sugar pumping through me, again for many years. There was never a need to carry sugar packets because what I needed was only a 2 minute car trip away
I broke that cycle by going as low-sugar as possible at the start. No soda, no fruit, no bread. Anything that had a good bit of sugar went, and I felt like hammered *kitten* for a few days until my body adjusted. I've worked the fruit back in and have a Coke Zero about once a day or so now, and feel like a brand new person. I can respect differing opinions, but on this one, anyone who hasn't gone through that particular fight and wants to dismiss it as non-existant can quite frankly kiss my a**
You felt bad because of the well-known "low-carb flu". I don't believe that sugar is addictive (any more than having fun is addictive) and yet when I suddenly and drastically decrease my carbs, I will feel "off" at best and "awful" at worst. This has nothing to do with sugar and everything to do with carbs in general. Your n=1 experience does not refute this in any way.
Who said I went low carb and hard low-carb flu? My carbs then and now are consistently around 100g a day. And fun can be addictive. Exercise can be addictive. Being obsessive at counting calories can be addicitve. Literally anything can be addicitve. there's no reason to dismiss peoples' experience just because it differs from your own.
Double-plus Edit: Before anyone accuses me of pushing my diet on others, I did what I had to do to get myself squared away. I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary or that anyone else must do things my way.
You cut out all soda, fruit and bread but kept your carbs the same? What did you eat instead to replace the carbs you weren't eating?
Most of the carbs I was getting were from vegetables and protein shakes.0 -
No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes. Processed foods are not what made us obese, over consumption is. But it's when people are going to the extreme and saying don't eat anything that has more than 5 ingredients or comes in a box.... that sets people up for failure.
I love to cook and bake, but there's also times I want McDonalds or something else, I just make it fit into my day. I try to follow an 80/20 rule... 80% good choices the other 20% I don't worry about, it's what has made this sustainable and much more enjoyable.
Plus everyone's at different levels and has different goals, when I started the only thing that mattered to me was losing the weight, so all I cared about was the amount of calories I was consuming, now that I've changed my goals to more fitness related I've changed what I track to reach those goals.
And now I need more coffee because there's way too much blood in my caffeine stream to think clearly
^This0 -
The bottom line is that creating a caloric deficit will cause you to lose weight, no matter what foods you eat. However, 300 calories of lean protein is going to satisfy you and keep you fuller a lot longer than 300 calories of french fries. So say what you will, but eating healthy most of the time (with treats here and there) is just smarter and sets you up for success.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions