Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.
Replies
-
I still find myself falling into the "good food"/"bad food" mindset and I'm trying very hard to divert that thinking. I agree with you, OP.0
-
Hitting the correct macros and micros while eating 100% "dirty" can be done. Staying within calorie limits is going to be the problem.
I just make sure I eat enough nutrient dense food and mix in "dirty" food to stay sane on a daily basis.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
But junk food is a term used by some of the most well respected nutritionist!
Any nutritionist with an actual degree in nutrition science will know that protein, fats, and carbs are nutrients.
Not sure what your point is here - no one is disputing that protein, fat and carbs are macro nutrients!
Junk food is a term to describe a high calorific, low micro nutrient value food.
And most nutritionist will use the term in the way it it understood by most of westernised society.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.
IMO it's people with an unhealthy obsession with food that dislike the word.
For me words are just words and I think the term junk fits just right.
I don't purposefully avoid that sort of food. It's not a food that I NEED in my diet, but when it hits high on my personal WANT scale I will have some.
I don't think of junk food as bad - I see it as second choice to a beneficial diet (but non the less it is still a choice).0 -
In for later.0
-
But if you're focusing on the total nutrition of your diet, you're going to be looking at the components of different foods in order to make sure that those goals are met. This would automatically push individuals to seek out foods, nutritionally dense, that allow for that to happen, while still allowing for them to enjoy those nutritionally sparse foods.
This should be stickied and should be the mantra of MFP and anybody trying to get their weight and/or health under control. It is succint, logical and easy to comprehend. People make this simple concept a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).0 -
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).
^^^This...0 -
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
But junk food is a term used by some of the most well respected nutritionist!
Any nutritionist with an actual degree in nutrition science will know that protein, fats, and carbs are nutrients.
Not sure what your point is here - no one is disputing that protein, fat and carbs are macro nutrients!
Junk food is a term to describe a high calorific, low micro nutrient value food.
And most nutritionist will use the term in the way it it understood by most of westernised society.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.
IMO it's people with an unhealthy obsession with food that dislike the word.
For me words are just words and I think the term junk fits just right.
I don't purposefully avoid that sort of food. It's not a food that I NEED in my diet, but when it hits high on my personal WANT scale I will have some.
I don't think of junk food as bad - I see it as second choice to a beneficial diet (but non the less it is still a choice).
There is no particular food *at all* that anyone needs in their diet. That's kinda the whole point.0 -
Yes there is - chilli! (No kidney beans though - ewwwww yuk)0
-
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
But junk food is a term used by some of the most well respected nutritionist!
Any nutritionist with an actual degree in nutrition science will know that protein, fats, and carbs are nutrients.
Not sure what your point is here - no one is disputing that protein, fat and carbs are macro nutrients!
Junk food is a term to describe a high calorific, low micro nutrient value food.
And most nutritionist will use the term in the way it it understood by most of westernised society.
It was actually a friend of mine, who has her degree in nutrition science, who convinced me that "junk food" and "empty calories" are nonsense terms that only serve to make people feel guilty about food choices.
I can't go back now that the curtain is open.
IMO it's people with an unhealthy obsession with food that dislike the word.
For me words are just words and I think the term junk fits just right.
I don't purposefully avoid that sort of food. It's not a food that I NEED in my diet, but when it hits high on my personal WANT scale I will have some.
I don't think of junk food as bad - I see it as second choice to a beneficial diet (but non the less it is still a choice).
if it is not bad then why label it "junk" food...
that would be like saying a BMW is not a bad car but it is a junk car...0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!0 -
Yes there is - chilli! (No kidney beans though - ewwwww yuk)
No need for chili. Sorry, that's a "want." Try again. :laugh:0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!
Junk already has a negative association attached to it..
If I say "wow, that house is a piece of junk" that implies something negative about the house.same thing with food. I did not make the connotation that is just how it is. Have you ever looked at something like you liked and called it junk???
Just saying that when you label food "junk" the implication is that it is bad or garbage...that is not a personal thing, that is just the connotation of the word...0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!
Junk already has a negative association attached to it..
If I say "wow, that house is a piece of junk" that implies something negative about the house.same thing with food. I did not make the connotation that is just how it is. Have you ever looked at something like you liked and called it junk???
Just saying that when you label food "junk" the implication is that it is bad or garbage...that is not a personal thing, that is just the connotation of the word...
Like I said that's your issue to deal with not mine.0 -
Yes there is - chilli! (No kidney beans though - ewwwww yuk)
No need for chili. Sorry, that's a "want." Try again. :laugh:
No for me the meat (protein and fat) I get from the chilli is a need, the calorie return I get for the nutritional value (I don't drain all of the fat) makes it optimal.
I understand the point you are trying to make and if I were on your side of the argument I would make the same point.
So maybe need is the wrong choice of word.
Maybe the distinction should be want (for my normal daily go to food) and occasionally crave (for junk food - although I do not crave it that often, but when I do I have some).0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!
Junk already has a negative association attached to it..
If I say "wow, that house is a piece of junk" that implies something negative about the house.same thing with food. I did not make the connotation that is just how it is. Have you ever looked at something like you liked and called it junk???
Just saying that when you label food "junk" the implication is that it is bad or garbage...that is not a personal thing, that is just the connotation of the word...
Like I said that's your issue to deal with not mine.
The circle of MFP
ndj1979 -
Maybe we should just start saying tennisdude2004's comments are junk comments. *shrugs*0 -
Yes there is - chilli! (No kidney beans though - ewwwww yuk)
No need for chili. Sorry, that's a "want." Try again. :laugh:
No for me the meat (protein and fat) I get from the chilli is a need, the calorie return I get for the nutritional value (I don't drain all of the fat) makes it optimal.
I understand the point you are trying to make and if I were on your side of the argument I would make the same point.
So maybe need is the wrong choice of word.
Maybe the distinction should be want (for my normal daily go to food) and occasionally crave (for junk food - although I do not crave it that often, but when I do I have some).
Yes, maybe you should buy a dictionary. Or upload one if you have a smart phone. You could use it.
:laugh: 0 -
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).
^^^This...
The multiquoted debates do keep pushing this back on the first page so at least I'm getting a wider audience to the idea even if the idea gets a bit muddled in the rest of the pages. I'll count it as a win.0 -
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).
^^^This...
The multiquoted debates do keep pushing this back on the first page so at least I'm getting a wider audience to the idea even if the idea gets a bit muddled in the rest of the pages. I'll count it as a win.
OP, I think I've liked all of the posts I've seen written by you! I think your OP was great and hope it keeps getting bumped up.
Now, a silly question - who's diet is healthier?
The person who has a daily goal of 1500 calories and only eats "healthy" foods OR the person who has a daily goal of 3000 calories and eats everything the 1500 calorie person does times 1.5 and then eats 750 calories of "junk"?0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!
Junk already has a negative association attached to it..
If I say "wow, that house is a piece of junk" that implies something negative about the house.same thing with food. I did not make the connotation that is just how it is. Have you ever looked at something like you liked and called it junk???
Just saying that when you label food "junk" the implication is that it is bad or garbage...that is not a personal thing, that is just the connotation of the word...
Like I said that's your issue to deal with not mine.
The circle of MFP
ndj1979 -
Maybe we should just start saying tennisdude2004's comments are junk comments. *shrugs*
apparently, since there is no negative connotation with the word then that would be fine...0 -
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).
^^^This...
The multiquoted debates do keep pushing this back on the first page so at least I'm getting a wider audience to the idea even if the idea gets a bit muddled in the rest of the pages. I'll count it as a win.
OP, I think I've liked all of the posts I've seen written by you! I think your OP was great and hope it keeps getting bumped up.
Now, a silly question - who's diet is healthier?
The person who has a daily goal of 1500 calories and only eats "healthy" foods OR the person who has a daily goal of 3000 calories and eats everything the 1500 calorie person does times 1.5 and then eats 750 calories of "junk"?
if they both hit their macro and micro targets and are within their calories goals, then the answer is they both are...0 -
Page after page of multiquoted debates over minutae and word definitions totally overshadow the point of the OP and the logic and accuracy of the quoted post (also by the OP).
^^^This...
The multiquoted debates do keep pushing this back on the first page so at least I'm getting a wider audience to the idea even if the idea gets a bit muddled in the rest of the pages. I'll count it as a win.
OP, I think I've liked all of the posts I've seen written by you! I think your OP was great and hope it keeps getting bumped up.
Now, a silly question - who's diet is healthier?
The person who has a daily goal of 1500 calories and only eats "healthy" foods OR the person who has a daily goal of 3000 calories and eats everything the 1500 calorie person does times 1.5 and then eats 750 calories of "junk"?
if they both hit their macro and micro targets and are within their calories goals, then the answer is they both are...
I would have said pretty much the same thing. They sound like two people with very different goals but as long as all the nutrient needs are met for each person, then they are both consuming a healthy diet.0 -
Lol - are you an Audi driver!
I think it's really down to how sensitive you are about words.
Personally when I think of the term junk food, I think of high cal, low nutrient - great tasting food and something to have as a treat, mmmmm BBQ meat feast pizza.
If you have a negative association with the term junk food - that's your issue not mine!
I think maybe your problem with this whole junk food issue is you assume that just because someone (me in this instance) doesn't refers to something as good then I must mean that it's bad - not true.
Food that is not healthy is not necessarily unhealthy!
Junk already has a negative association attached to it..
If I say "wow, that house is a piece of junk" that implies something negative about the house.same thing with food. I did not make the connotation that is just how it is. Have you ever looked at something like you liked and called it junk???
Just saying that when you label food "junk" the implication is that it is bad or garbage...that is not a personal thing, that is just the connotation of the word...
Like I said that's your issue to deal with not mine.
The circle of MFP
ndj1979 -
Maybe we should just start saying tennisdude2004's comments are junk comments. *shrugs*
Lol - you do anyway.
This is obviously something we will not agree on.
To save multi posts we should set up a system where if we do not have an agree meant within half a dozen exchanges we should politely agree to disagree and not challenge each other further.
Or just keep doing what we are doing and go round in circles.0 -
Yes there is - chilli! (No kidney beans though - ewwwww yuk)
No need for chili. Sorry, that's a "want." Try again. :laugh:
No for me the meat (protein and fat) I get from the chilli is a need, the calorie return I get for the nutritional value (I don't drain all of the fat) makes it optimal.
I understand the point you are trying to make and if I were on your side of the argument I would make the same point.
So maybe need is the wrong choice of word.
Maybe the distinction should be want (for my normal daily go to food) and occasionally crave (for junk food - although I do not crave it that often, but when I do I have some).
Yes, maybe you should buy a dictionary. Or upload one if you have a smart phone. You could use it. :laugh:
Wow great response.
You must have been head of your debating team at school.0 -
I don't know about you, but broccoli and chicken breasts aren't really snack foods to me. If I wanted to eat chicken breast or broccoli I would have made them for lunch. Vice versa, I wouldn't open up a cake for dinner. Those foods are for different occasions and saying one is better than the other is like saying suits are better clothes than shorts... when going to the pool.
cake and pie for breakfast are the best things EVER.... I don't put my foods in a box!!!!!
Nobody puts baclava in a box!!!!!!
.... in other news....
Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
I vote "Bachelor Chow."0 -
Personally I don't believe in eating just to hit a calorie goal, so there's no such thing as MUST eat; therefore that wouldn't be an issue for me - I'd just make up some food to eat if I was hungry and be done with it. I'm not going to stuff myself full of junk food just for the sake of ingesting a crap ton of calories - that kind of eating is what led to problems in the first place, as well as not eating when actually hungry, but for other reasons.Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
Just depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life I guess, but personally I'd be quite fine coming home with 1000 calories left and just eating some chicken and veggies and calling it a night with a bigger than usual deficit.0 -
Personally I don't believe in eating just to hit a calorie goal, so there's no such thing as MUST eat; therefore that wouldn't be an issue for me - I'd just make up some food to eat if I was hungry and be done with it. I'm not going to stuff myself full of junk food just for the sake of ingesting a crap ton of calories - that kind of eating is what led to problems in the first place, as well as not eating when actually hungry, but for other reasons.Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
Just depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life I guess, but personally I'd be quite fine coming home with 1000 calories left and just eating some chicken and veggies and calling it a night with a bigger than usual deficit.
If you have certain fitness goals, leaving 1000 calories at the end of the day could be a detriment to those goals, especially bulking for weight lifting.0 -
Personally I don't believe in eating just to hit a calorie goal, so there's no such thing as MUST eat; therefore that wouldn't be an issue for me - I'd just make up some food to eat if I was hungry and be done with it. I'm not going to stuff myself full of junk food just for the sake of ingesting a crap ton of calories - that kind of eating is what led to problems in the first place, as well as not eating when actually hungry, but for other reasons.Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
Just depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life I guess, but personally I'd be quite fine coming home with 1000 calories left and just eating some chicken and veggies and calling it a night with a bigger than usual deficit.
If you have certain fitness goals, leaving 1000 calories at the end of the day could be a detriment to those goals, especially bulking for weight lifting.
Bulking, sure. Weightlifting, nope. More people need to suck it up and stop being a nancy. You don't NEED to be on a sugar rush to lift. At least I don't.0 -
Personally I don't believe in eating just to hit a calorie goal, so there's no such thing as MUST eat; therefore that wouldn't be an issue for me - I'd just make up some food to eat if I was hungry and be done with it. I'm not going to stuff myself full of junk food just for the sake of ingesting a crap ton of calories - that kind of eating is what led to problems in the first place, as well as not eating when actually hungry, but for other reasons.Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
Just depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life I guess, but personally I'd be quite fine coming home with 1000 calories left and just eating some chicken and veggies and calling it a night with a bigger than usual deficit.
If you have certain fitness goals, leaving 1000 calories at the end of the day could be a detriment to those goals, especially bulking for weight lifting.
Bulking, sure. Weightlifting, nope. More people need to suck it up and stop being a nancy. You don't NEED to be on a sugar rush to lift. At least I don't.
I said bulking for weightlifting. No one even mentioned sugar. I routinely eat 1500 calories at dinner and it's mostly meat, a starch, veggies, a beer/wine and then a dessert.
Also, what's the context for 'sucking it up and stopping being a nancy'? It made no sense.0 -
Personally I don't believe in eating just to hit a calorie goal, so there's no such thing as MUST eat; therefore that wouldn't be an issue for me - I'd just make up some food to eat if I was hungry and be done with it. I'm not going to stuff myself full of junk food just for the sake of ingesting a crap ton of calories - that kind of eating is what led to problems in the first place, as well as not eating when actually hungry, but for other reasons.Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
Just depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life I guess, but personally I'd be quite fine coming home with 1000 calories left and just eating some chicken and veggies and calling it a night with a bigger than usual deficit.
If you have certain fitness goals, leaving 1000 calories at the end of the day could be a detriment to those goals, especially bulking for weight lifting.
Bulking, sure. Weightlifting, nope. More people need to suck it up and stop being a nancy. You don't NEED to be on a sugar rush to lift. At least I don't.
I said bulking for weightlifting. No one even mentioned sugar. I routinely eat 1500 calories at dinner and it's mostly meat, a starch, veggies, a beer/wine and then a dessert.
Also, what's the context for 'sucking it up and stopping being a nancy'? It made no sense.
Quite often people on these forums use lifting as an excuse to eat a ton of carbs and sugar the night before or the day they lift. I find it ridiculous. I've had many days where I ended with several hundred extra calories uneaten, on a 2lb sedentary deficit. Still managed to get off my rear and get 'er done that next day.
Edit: And admittedly I read your comment as bulking "or" lifting. That part is my bad.0 -
Personally I don't believe in eating just to hit a calorie goal, so there's no such thing as MUST eat; therefore that wouldn't be an issue for me - I'd just make up some food to eat if I was hungry and be done with it. I'm not going to stuff myself full of junk food just for the sake of ingesting a crap ton of calories - that kind of eating is what led to problems in the first place, as well as not eating when actually hungry, but for other reasons.Those of you arguing the less than stellar nutritional value of "junk food And why they aren't good options because bang for buck they offer little "nutrionally" but are yet very high in calories.
I guess none of you have come home with over 1000 calories to eat- exhausted and you MUST eat... clearly eating another 3 chicken breasts and bags of steamable veggies is the answer.
or you could just crumble up those highly processed delicious nuggets called oreo's on top of your favorite ice cream and a tall glass of milk- and relax, enjoy your favorite short episode of Futurama and know that you'll be safe on your quest for bulking.
Just depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life I guess, but personally I'd be quite fine coming home with 1000 calories left and just eating some chicken and veggies and calling it a night with a bigger than usual deficit.
If you have certain fitness goals, leaving 1000 calories at the end of the day could be a detriment to those goals, especially bulking for weight lifting.
-shrugs- I don't know much about bulking but I did say in my post that it depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your life. But since this is predominantly a weight loss forum I don't think bulking/weight gain anecdotes will be all that persuasive for most people, particularly when the anecdote was about people preferring healthy foods over a giant sundae. Sure, eating a crap ton of calories quickly may work for someone trying to gain weight, but for people trying to lose weight, that's hardly something they're going to be interested in.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions