Why do people seem to bash "healthy"eating?
Options
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.
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
-
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.
Where did I say that choosing not to eat "junk" food is self-deprivation? Nowhere. I said it's *possible* to eat these foods that some people (not me) classify as "junk".... not *mandatory* LOL.... and what foods do I consider junk food? None of them, I avoid using that term (and put it in "s when I have to use it such as in debates about "junk" food). How can I consider it mandatory for people to consume a category of food when I don't even consider the categorsation valid to begin with?
if there are foods that you really want to eat but you deny yourself those foods out of the mistaken belief that you can't be healthy or lose fat if you eat them, then yes that's self-deprivation. This only applies to food that you *actually really want* to eat. It doesn't apply to food that you don't want to eat. Very obvious statement is very obvious... but this is MFP so I guess having to state the obvious is necessary sometimes....0 -
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.
You know what's likely even *more* satiating?
300 calories of not-lean protein.
(Sorry, but this whole "lean protein" phrase is one of my triggers.)0 -
.
Choosing not to eat junk is now self-deprivation?
I only eat food. Junk is for junkies.
Don't you mean junk is for junk yards - more precise please.
What you meant was drugs are for drug addicts.0 -
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.
You know what's likely even *more* satiating?
300 calories of not-lean protein.
(Sorry, but this whole "lean protein" phrase is one of my triggers.)
Yep with you on that one - fatty cuts are the best.
Mmmmmm saturated fat!!!0 -
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.
You know what's likely even *more* satiating?
300 calories of not-lean protein.
(Sorry, but this whole "lean protein" phrase is one of my triggers.)
Doesn't bother me - I go for the occasional pork belly/bacon/ribeye too given the chance! Day to day though I try to stick with tofu, chicken, fish, turkey, etc so that I can sneak in dessert and/or a glass of wine.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.
+10 -
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, overconsumption 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.
This.
+10 -
I'd find 300 calories of lean meat over fatty meat more saiting, I'd say.
300 calories of lean cheap meat is around 300g.
300 calories of fatty meat can easily be 100g.
I am hoping to work more fatty meat into my diet - it's cheaper if nothing else - but trying to not go too high on my high calorie days still, which of course is the time it's easier.0 -
I'd find 300 calories of lean meat over fatty meat more saiting, I'd say.
300 calories of lean cheap meat is around 300g.
300 calories of fatty meat can easily be 100g.
I am hoping to work more fatty meat into my diet - it's cheaper if nothing else - but trying to not go too high on my high calorie days still, which of course is the time it's easier.
Satiety <> food mass.
A high concentration of protein by itself will provide the same insulin spike that leads to hunger shortly after as a high carb meal. I believe that fat is more satiating for this very reason (and because it tempers this spike). Or at least I think that's how it works.
My biggest problem with the phrase "lean protein" is that I suspect most people say it out of habit without even realizing it because it has been ingrained into our thinking from the old "eating fat makes you fat" days.0 -
I'd find 300 calories of lean meat over fatty meat more saiting, I'd say.
300 calories of lean cheap meat is around 300g.
300 calories of fatty meat can easily be 100g.
I am hoping to work more fatty meat into my diet - it's cheaper if nothing else - but trying to not go too high on my high calorie days still, which of course is the time it's easier.
Satiety <> food mass.
A high concentration of protein by itself will provide the same insulin spike that leads to hunger shortly after as a high carb meal. I believe that fat is more satiating for this very reason (and because it tempers this spike). Or at least I think that's how it works.
My biggest problem with the phrase "lean protein" is that I suspect most people say it out of habit without even realizing it because it has been ingrained into our thinking from the old "eating fat makes you fat" days.
Depends on the person and their own hormone roller coaster. I'm a volume eater, so a big fluffy bowl of oatmeal is more satiating to me than a piece of meat, even though it's rich in carbs. That said, lean meat is out of the question. If my meat isn't fatty and chuck full of flavors and richness, it won't pass my lips.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