Why do people seem to bash "healthy"eating?
Options
Replies
-
Some foods will do both. Some food will do neither. Food for thought - I would suggest it's a really rather silly phrase!I like this phrase "Everytime you eat you are either feeding disease or preventing it." I think that's good food for thought. I remind myself of this when I want something processed and relatively unhealthy.
Again, I never see that.t pressure others to justify why they eat the way they do even if the diet of choice is casually mentioned in passing.
If someone recommends the way they eat as solution to a problem which isn't proven, I will likely ask for evidence.
Unfortunately a lot of people DO think that asking for proof, evidence and so on is "bashing".
I think the reason it's often viewed as bashing is because it comes off as being very confrontational, rather than curious. Why is someone saying that Paleo/clean/low-carb/etc. etc. etc. might be useful/helpful because of either anecdotal evidence ("It worked for me") or because they read or heard something somewhere, it's just a suggestion. No one asks people to justify or prove their suggestions when those suggestions are to work out, or count calories, or IIFYM, or everything in moderation, etc.
If someone was saying this is the ONLY solution, then I'd agree with asking why they think that. If it's just a suggestion or someone mentioning this is what they do, why should they need to provide evidence?
Also, I've NEVER seen anyone on MFP saying you HAVE to eat clean, or Paleo, or any of the "fringe" diets. I have however seen people acting and talking as if moderation, etc. is the only way to go. If you have had bad experiences with someone who's clean/Paleo/etc. then I'm sorry, but to be honest in all of the clean eating threads I've seen lately, I've not seen a single clean eater saying you have to eat this way, or can't eat that, etc.
Just this afternoon a newer member on a new thread asked about vegetables because she was going to eat clean. I think it only took 4 replies before she was grilled as to why she wanted to eat clean. Honestly, other members don't realize how they come across. One simple question regarding vegetables and already it becomes a defend why you want to eat clean? It is no one's business why she wants to eat clean! The question was about vegetables. Anyway, anyone who mentions anything about eating clean is immediately put on the hot seat. And to make matters worse, if the member who says they eat clean doesn't provide some type of justification, links to why eating clean is better and open their diary things get worse. Honestly, these folks putting those who eat anything other than the SAD need to get a grip!
How about looking at the other side of it, check the advice given to the 378 male that eats out for every meal, here's one bit of what someone told him:Start off easy:
no sugar
no fried foods
No white carbs-flour products
Then as you start to lose weight you wil learn more and more about eating whole non-processed foods.
How is that healthy for him? How is that good advice? Do you really think he's going to be able to make those drastic changes over night and why would that even be suggested?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1268053-obese-and-need-help?hl=obese+help&page=2#posts-19763171
So healthy for him is focus on his caloric intake and start dropping some weight... but yet he was given extremes
Pity! I think some members just latch onto one thing and go with that without reading the OP then addressing that concern. Then it snowballs :huh:0 -
Some foods will do both. Some food will do neither. Food for thought - I would suggest it's a really rather silly phrase!I like this phrase "Everytime you eat you are either feeding disease or preventing it." I think that's good food for thought. I remind myself of this when I want something processed and relatively unhealthy.
Again, I never see that.t pressure others to justify why they eat the way they do even if the diet of choice is casually mentioned in passing.
If someone recommends the way they eat as solution to a problem which isn't proven, I will likely ask for evidence.
Unfortunately a lot of people DO think that asking for proof, evidence and so on is "bashing".
I think the reason it's often viewed as bashing is because it comes off as being very confrontational, rather than curious. Why is someone saying that Paleo/clean/low-carb/etc. etc. etc. might be useful/helpful because of either anecdotal evidence ("It worked for me") or because they read or heard something somewhere, it's just a suggestion. No one asks people to justify or prove their suggestions when those suggestions are to work out, or count calories, or IIFYM, or everything in moderation, etc.
If someone was saying this is the ONLY solution, then I'd agree with asking why they think that. If it's just a suggestion or someone mentioning this is what they do, why should they need to provide evidence?
Also, I've NEVER seen anyone on MFP saying you HAVE to eat clean, or Paleo, or any of the "fringe" diets. I have however seen people acting and talking as if moderation, etc. is the only way to go. If you have had bad experiences with someone who's clean/Paleo/etc. then I'm sorry, but to be honest in all of the clean eating threads I've seen lately, I've not seen a single clean eater saying you have to eat this way, or can't eat that, etc.
Just this afternoon a newer member on a new thread asked about vegetables because she was going to eat clean. I think it only took 4 replies before she was grilled as to why she wanted to eat clean. Honestly, other members don't realize how they come across. One simple question regarding vegetables and already it becomes a defend why you want to eat clean? It is no one's business why she wants to eat clean! The question was about vegetables. Anyway, anyone who mentions anything about eating clean is immediately put on the hot seat. And to make matters worse, if the member who says they eat clean doesn't provide some type of justification, links to why eating clean is better and open their diary things get worse. Honestly, these folks putting those who eat anything other than the SAD need to get a grip!
Is it possible that you feel a bit out of place because you do not subscribe to the primary purpose of this site, which is calorie counting for as long as you can stomach it? If a new user is asking about clean eating, yes, she will likely get asked why she is doing this. IMO the participants are slacking off if they do not ask this question. It is important to find out if, especially a newer member feels she NEEDS to eat clean to lose weight. And if she does, she can be advised that she indeed doesn't , and simply needs to eat at a caloric deficit. Now whether or not she chooses to take that advise after reviewing her personal situation, as an adult is apt to do, is up to her, but I would have you refer to the dozens of posts right here on this thread about "falling off" and generally low compliance to restrictive diets. If you really think we should simply help her with her specific question and mind our business on everything else, you may be on the wrong site
BUT, she wasn't asking about clean eating or how to eat clean or even asking for advice on clean eating. She was asking about vegetables. The fact others had to grill her on clean eating because she wants ways to work vegetables into her diet does not fit into what you are suggesting. This type of thing happens over and over.
I see that thread referenced a lot in this thread an all I can say about it is: Really? That's the example you want to use?
The OP titled the thread about clean eating and not liking vegetables. Even if clean eating wasn't mentioned in the OP, it was in the title, which makes it fair game. Isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, the people "grilling" the OP (and I'll even give you that I'm sure it got snarky) were doing so because the OP was setting him/herself up for failure?
The majority of threads discussing clean eating end up getting locked then deleted by the moderators. This particular thread was the first I could find quickly and the questioning aka justify yourself judgmental attitude came out within a few replies. I suspect that thread will end up getting nuked as well. Tempers tend to flare on both sides of the debate.0 -
Goddamn it I haven't been here since about page eight. Can someone sum up what I missed? >_<
Not much...a few minor insults but no real butthurt as we head to the 500 mark :laugh: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.
Except, it is anyone that merely mentions they eat clean or eat healthy that are bashed NOT just the ones posting about the topics you've mentioned. I certainly could go on and on about why certain foods or additives are not the healthy choice BUT I don't here and I don't push my food beliefs here. Eat what you want. I respect your decision to eat as you choose. It is too bad other who choose not to eat clean cannot respect my choice to eat the way I choose.
You're confusing bashing and questioning.
What does "eat clean" mean? Ask two different people and you will get two different answers. Labels are great when they're useful, but when no two people can agree on what a label means then it becomes meaningless.
If you (general you, not YOU you) tell a newbie looking for diet advice "just eat clean," of course people are going to question that, and they should because that's terribly vague and not very useful advice.0 -
Some foods will do both. Some food will do neither. Food for thought - I would suggest it's a really rather silly phrase!I like this phrase "Everytime you eat you are either feeding disease or preventing it." I think that's good food for thought. I remind myself of this when I want something processed and relatively unhealthy.
Again, I never see that.t pressure others to justify why they eat the way they do even if the diet of choice is casually mentioned in passing.
If someone recommends the way they eat as solution to a problem which isn't proven, I will likely ask for evidence.
Unfortunately a lot of people DO think that asking for proof, evidence and so on is "bashing".
I think the reason it's often viewed as bashing is because it comes off as being very confrontational, rather than curious. Why is someone saying that Paleo/clean/low-carb/etc. etc. etc. might be useful/helpful because of either anecdotal evidence ("It worked for me") or because they read or heard something somewhere, it's just a suggestion. No one asks people to justify or prove their suggestions when those suggestions are to work out, or count calories, or IIFYM, or everything in moderation, etc.
If someone was saying this is the ONLY solution, then I'd agree with asking why they think that. If it's just a suggestion or someone mentioning this is what they do, why should they need to provide evidence?
Also, I've NEVER seen anyone on MFP saying you HAVE to eat clean, or Paleo, or any of the "fringe" diets. I have however seen people acting and talking as if moderation, etc. is the only way to go. If you have had bad experiences with someone who's clean/Paleo/etc. then I'm sorry, but to be honest in all of the clean eating threads I've seen lately, I've not seen a single clean eater saying you have to eat this way, or can't eat that, etc.
Just this afternoon a newer member on a new thread asked about vegetables because she was going to eat clean. I think it only took 4 replies before she was grilled as to why she wanted to eat clean. Honestly, other members don't realize how they come across. One simple question regarding vegetables and already it becomes a defend why you want to eat clean? It is no one's business why she wants to eat clean! The question was about vegetables. Anyway, anyone who mentions anything about eating clean is immediately put on the hot seat. And to make matters worse, if the member who says they eat clean doesn't provide some type of justification, links to why eating clean is better and open their diary things get worse. Honestly, these folks putting those who eat anything other than the SAD need to get a grip!
How about looking at the other side of it, check the advice given to the 378 male that eats out for every meal, here's one bit of what someone told him:Start off easy:
no sugar
no fried foods
No white carbs-flour products
Then as you start to lose weight you wil learn more and more about eating whole non-processed foods.
How is that healthy for him? How is that good advice? Do you really think he's going to be able to make those drastic changes over night and why would that even be suggested?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1268053-obese-and-need-help?hl=obese+help&page=2#posts-19763171
So healthy for him is focus on his caloric intake and start dropping some weight... but yet he was given extremes
Pity! I think some members just latch onto one thing and go with that without reading the OP then addressing that concern. Then it snowballs :huh:
Yes this advice to someone who is already on the verge of giving up because they are finding it difficult, now told they have to make drastic changes and give up everything, all that is going to do is make them quit sooner.
So in my example you agree it was wrong coming from the "clean eater's" viewpoint, but when it's the other way it's bashing? When in your example they mention I don't like vegetables but want to eat clean, and people ask "Why? what is clean eating?" "What are you hoping to accomplish and can you sustain this forever?" that's not bashing, when I ask those question it helps me understand where they are at mentally and what they are trying to achieve.0 -
impressive considering 17 pages of postsGoddamn it I haven't been here since about page eight. Can someone sum up what I missed? >_<
Not much...a few minor insults but no real butthurt as we head to the 500 mark :laugh:0 -
Just this afternoon a newer member on a new thread asked about vegetables because she was going to eat clean. I think it only took 4 replies before she was grilled as to why she wanted to eat clean. Honestly, other members don't realize how they come across. One simple question regarding vegetables and already it becomes a defend why you want to eat clean? It is no one's business why she wants to eat clean! The question was about vegetables. Anyway, anyone who mentions anything about eating clean is immediately put on the hot seat. And to make matters worse, if the member who says they eat clean doesn't provide some type of justification, links to why eating clean is better and open their diary things get worse. Honestly, these folks putting those who eat anything other than the SAD need to get a grip!
Why the assumption that the people who were asking her why she eats clean all eat the SAD?
Dichotomous thinking is faulty logic and leads to long drawn-out threads like these.
Dichotomous thinking = putting people (or things) into one of two categories, generally two extremes... people in this debate get polarised into "IIFYM/junk food warriors/people who eat nothing but junk" and "clean eaters/healthy eaters/people who systematically avoid all junk food" - your assumption that anyone who's questioning someone who says they eats clean must be eating the standard American diet is the result of such dichotomous thinking. And it's bad logic.... just because someone advises people that they can enjoy some "junk" food so long as they stick to their macro and calorie goals, it does not mean they themselves eat huge amounts of junk food, or that they're advising others to eat huge amounts of junk food....just that they can eat it if it fits in their calorie/macro goals.
It's interesting that the clean eaters who exercise dichotomous thinking with regards to people who advise others they don't have to give up all "junk" food, also have dichotomous thinking about food, i.e. classifying food into "healthy" and "junk" and striving to get all their diet from the "healthy" category and abstain from the "junk" category............ but foods don't fit into two extremes like this...... food generally falls on a continuum from extremely nutritious to empty calories. And most of the food that's classified as "Junk" doesn't actually fall at the empty calories end of the scale either... burgers are very nutritious - they contain protein, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. The problem is that they're easy to overeat on and they don't contain much fibre. A diet consisting of only burgers is going to be unbalanced, and therefore unhealthy. But if you're getting fibre from other sources and a wider range of vitamins and minerals from other sources, then including a burger in your diet, while also watching your calories, is not unhealthy. Even foods that are genuinely empty calories (meaning they give you calories and sugar but nothing else, e.g. boiled sweets, gummy bears) - nothing wrong with having a few every now and then if the rest of your diet includes all the nutrition your body needs and you log the calories.
People don't fit neatly into categories. The diet of someone who does IIFYM properly is probably no different than someone who eats 80/20 clean or even 90/10 clean. And re the assumption about the SAD - a lot of people on this site are not even American... I eat a combination of Arabic, British, American and Indian food... that might be considered to be typically British but it's not typically American. And my diet contains plenty of protein, moderate amounts of fat and carbs, plenty of vitamins and minerals (I try to get my 7 servings of fruit and veg a day - as advised by the British health authorities) and also plenty of fibre. And I drink lots of water. So if I'm going to go to KFC or Dairy Queen or get Lebanese or Iranian takeaway once a week or once a fortnight, then I'll see that as a boost to my protein intake and a reason to be careful with fats and carbs for the rest of the day. I call it IIFYM, someone else will call how I eat 80/20 clean. Point is I'm happy and healthy and my way of eating is sustainable. And I get to eat DQ chocolate chunk frozen yoghurt every couple of weeks or so. and also that people don't fit neatly into categories regarding how they eat.
Most of what is perceived by the OP and other people on this thread as "bashing healthy eating" is actually an attempt to counteract dichotomous thinking, i.e. getting people to realise that a healthy diet is about balance and that it's possible to be healthy and lose weight and eat foods classified as "junk" by some, and that there's no reason to deprive yourself as long as you're careful about fitting it into your macro and calorie goals.
You were doing so good, and then...
Choosing not to eat junk is now self-deprivation? Perhaps YOU have an unhealthy relationship with food*
* Absolutely hate that phrase, since it just screams Tumblr-esque stupidity.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.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.0 -
.
Choosing not to eat junk is now self-deprivation?
The key word there is "choosing" right?
If you don't particularly like chocolate / cake / McDonalds or whatever or feel strongly that it is in your best interests not to eat them then there is little deprivation. I doubt anyone is concerned about that scenario any more than they are for a vegetarian who chooses not to eat meat.
The problem comes when the message gets pushed, and it certainly does get pushed, that a person must eliminate food items, usually classed as "junk" food which they very much enjoy either completely or drastically over an extended period of time to be successful or healthy. It takes away free choice for no good reason and sets up an unhealthy relationship with food (yeah, I said it...) and sets up a restrict / binge cycle on many occasions (the classic yo yo dieting scenario.)
Really all the tribalism is nonsense. At their heart most successful dieting shares common themes and identifying as a "clean eater" or "low carber" or "IIFYMer" is in itself pointless. We are eaters - either happy or unhappy.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...0 -
.
Choosing not to eat junk is now self-deprivation?
The key word there is "choosing" right?
If you don't particularly like chocolate / cake / McDonalds or whatever or feel strongly that it is in your best interests not to eat them then there is little deprivation. I doubt anyone is concerned about that scenario any more than they are for a vegetarian who chooses not to eat meat.
The problem comes when the message gets pushed, and it certainly does get pushed, that a person must eliminate food items, usually classed as "junk" food which they very much enjoy either completely or drastically over an extended period of time to be successful or healthy. It takes away free choice for no good reason and sets up an unhealthy relationship with food (yeah, I said it...) and sets up a restrict / binge cycle on many occasions (the classic yo yo dieting scenario.)
Really all the tribalism is nonsense. At their heart most successful dieting shares common themes and identifying as a "clean eater" or "low carber" or "IIFYMer" is in itself pointless. We are eaters - either happy or unhappy.
Agreed..
The problem comes in when people say "carbs are bad, or carbs make you fat" or "sugar made me fat", and because of that I am now going to eliminate them because they are "bad"...no they are not "bad" you just overate on certain foods which caused the weight gain, not the specific food.
there is a difference between not eating something because one does not like it, and not eating something because it is "evil"....0 -
.
Choosing not to eat junk is now self-deprivation?
I only eat food. Junk is for junkies.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: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.
hmmmm... I think this can be debated..."Bulimics are addicted to puking their guts up"...I don't think so...it's a means to an end...not an addiction. From personal experience...been there done that.0 -
obsession is not the same as addiction.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.0 -
Just this afternoon a newer member on a new thread asked about vegetables because she was going to eat clean. I think it only took 4 replies before she was grilled as to why she wanted to eat clean. Honestly, other members don't realize how they come across. One simple question regarding vegetables and already it becomes a defend why you want to eat clean? It is no one's business why she wants to eat clean! The question was about vegetables. Anyway, anyone who mentions anything about eating clean is immediately put on the hot seat. And to make matters worse, if the member who says they eat clean doesn't provide some type of justification, links to why eating clean is better and open their diary things get worse. Honestly, these folks putting those who eat anything other than the SAD need to get a grip!
Why the assumption that the people who were asking her why she eats clean all eat the SAD?
Dichotomous thinking is faulty logic and leads to long drawn-out threads like these.
Dichotomous thinking = putting people (or things) into one of two categories, generally two extremes... people in this debate get polarised into "IIFYM/junk food warriors/people who eat nothing but junk" and "clean eaters/healthy eaters/people who systematically avoid all junk food" - your assumption that anyone who's questioning someone who says they eats clean must be eating the standard American diet is the result of such dichotomous thinking. And it's bad logic.... just because someone advises people that they can enjoy some "junk" food so long as they stick to their macro and calorie goals, it does not mean they themselves eat huge amounts of junk food, or that they're advising others to eat huge amounts of junk food....just that they can eat it if it fits in their calorie/macro goals.
It's interesting that the clean eaters who exercise dichotomous thinking with regards to people who advise others they don't have to give up all "junk" food, also have dichotomous thinking about food, i.e. classifying food into "healthy" and "junk" and striving to get all their diet from the "healthy" category and abstain from the "junk" category............ but foods don't fit into two extremes like this...... food generally falls on a continuum from extremely nutritious to empty calories. And most of the food that's classified as "Junk" doesn't actually fall at the empty calories end of the scale either... burgers are very nutritious - they contain protein, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. The problem is that they're easy to overeat on and they don't contain much fibre. A diet consisting of only burgers is going to be unbalanced, and therefore unhealthy. But if you're getting fibre from other sources and a wider range of vitamins and minerals from other sources, then including a burger in your diet, while also watching your calories, is not unhealthy. Even foods that are genuinely empty calories (meaning they give you calories and sugar but nothing else, e.g. boiled sweets, gummy bears) - nothing wrong with having a few every now and then if the rest of your diet includes all the nutrition your body needs and you log the calories.
People don't fit neatly into categories. The diet of someone who does IIFYM properly is probably no different than someone who eats 80/20 clean or even 90/10 clean. And re the assumption about the SAD - a lot of people on this site are not even American... I eat a combination of Arabic, British, American and Indian food... that might be considered to be typically British but it's not typically American. And my diet contains plenty of protein, moderate amounts of fat and carbs, plenty of vitamins and minerals (I try to get my 7 servings of fruit and veg a day - as advised by the British health authorities) and also plenty of fibre. And I drink lots of water. So if I'm going to go to KFC or Dairy Queen or get Lebanese or Iranian takeaway once a week or once a fortnight, then I'll see that as a boost to my protein intake and a reason to be careful with fats and carbs for the rest of the day. I call it IIFYM, someone else will call how I eat 80/20 clean. Point is I'm happy and healthy and my way of eating is sustainable. And I get to eat DQ chocolate chunk frozen yoghurt every couple of weeks or so. and also that people don't fit neatly into categories regarding how they eat.
Most of what is perceived by the OP and other people on this thread as "bashing healthy eating" is actually an attempt to counteract dichotomous thinking, i.e. getting people to realise that a healthy diet is about balance and that it's possible to be healthy and lose weight and eat foods classified as "junk" by some, and that there's no reason to deprive yourself as long as you're careful about fitting it into your macro and calorie goals.
Thank you, neandermagnon.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....0 -
impressive considering 17 pages of postsGoddamn it I haven't been here since about page eight. Can someone sum up what I missed? >_<
Not much...a few minor insults but no real butthurt as we head to the 500 mark :laugh:
Isn't it though? Calm, cool, collected discussion without much drama. Who would have thunk it? :drinker:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions