You can eat whatever you want :)

vjohn04

Whatever you like.....

cmcollins001

It's called if it fits your macros.
And mine includes normal chocolate and not ersatz anything. Stevia tastes like sadness and dirty socks.

Sabine_Stroehm

I said it because I see folks following iifym that have no plants (other than tomato sauce and french fries) whatsoever in their log day after day...
So, I said it.
Because, well, micros too.

And I've seen "clean eaters" who have essentially no fruits and veggies too, so people are just weird. I think it's pretty widely agreed-upon at MFP (at least from what I've observed) that micros are important, even if not everyone who keeps a diary actually follows through.

And I've long said that IIFYM is as useless a label as clean eating.

Sarauk2sf

OP, that's not really eating whatever you want. Not saying those recipes or alternatives don't taste good, but it's not the same.

For those actually interested in IIFYM, here are a couple links to read. And no, it's not about "just" eating pop tarts, ice cream and pizza as I'm sure someone has or will just throw out thinking putting out an extreme example is going to prove it's wrong or something.

Also including a favorite quote:
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!' - Eric Helms


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1380837-article-on-iifym-great-read

Macro AND micro, of course.

The quote from Helms is about micronutrients.

MelodyandBarbells

I'll usually try a lower calorie substitution at least once. If I can't tell the difference, it goes in the permanent rotation.

Oh, and snickers doesn't have to be real chocolate to hit the spot.

And I'm pretty sure I'd still eat the whole thing of real chocolate if I had it in the house.

Sarauk2sf

Edit ... lol...spam post was removed...so nothing so see here!!!

EvgeniZyntx

All carbohydrates- every type you can imagine- after being processed in the gut and liver are released from the liver into the bloodstream as 95% glucose, with 2-3% fructose, and the rest galactose. All of these are simple six-carbon molecules.

ALL carbohydrates.

Just FYI.

In Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, of course.

No reason to read that book OP or anyone else. It's just a bunch of nonsense that that member posts every post. Basically using mfp as marketing and the site allows it.

Guyton's is an excellent reference book in General Physiology - It was my go-to in junior year in college. For general medical physiology.
But our poster doesn't need Guyton's as a reference to her nutritional position.

I doubt Guyton's has what our breakfast skipper poster writes above quite like that. For example, fiber is a carbohydrate and not digested - of the dietary carbohydrates that are digested, yes, they all end up primarily as glucose. So no, not ALL carbohydrates. Furthermore, the liver is a very complex organ and it's function with dietary carbs can't be reduced to glucose output - just to mention one process - dietary carbs (and the resulting glucose) are also used up to make a variety of glycoproteins - a simple example is transferrin, synthesized directly in the liver. Some ... Anyway, Guyton's is rather poor source of info on transferrin and other glycoprotein synthesis - barely makes a passing mention on page 46 of my edition.

As good as Guyton's is, I wish he'd stop using it as a call to authority - I loved that text book, he's killing it.

But I don't even know what that has to do with what the OP is writing.

EvgeniZyntx

All carbohydrates- every type you can imagine- after being processed in the gut and liver are released from the liver into the bloodstream as 95% glucose, with 2-3% fructose, and the rest galactose. All of these are simple six-carbon molecules.

ALL carbohydrates.

Just FYI.

In Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, of course.

i understand this to a degree, but have a hard time believing that a twinkie's carbs are "the same" as carbs from zucchini

Ok - maybe his post does have a reason.

Why is it hard to understand that twinkie and zucchini carbs are the same?

Let's look at something as simple as water. If you take soup, blood, drinking water, urine or sea water and filter out the gunk, boil it to evaporation and re-condense the vapor back into water it is just water. It is basically undecipherable from the source.
This very basic process led the early Greeks (Democritus and Lucretius are at the heart of this) composed the idea that things around us composed entirely of various elements called atoms - these basic building blocks are interchangeable - a "you" carbon is no different than a "dog" carbon or a "star" carbon.

If I use a chemical process to create a sugar for the Twinkie with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and I create the the same sugar in a zucchini via photosynthesis - the resulting sugar - if they have the same chemical and structural formulas are truly indistinguishable. The carbs themselves are the same.

What is different is "all the other stuff" that comes along with a Twinkie or a zucchini, the ratio of sugars, etc. But that single molecule and the resulting glucose once the liver gets done with it - indistinguishable at the molecular level. The Twinkie provides more nutritional value than a zucchini - that's right - an ounce of Twinkie provides more carbs than an ounce of zucchini - by a wopping ratio of 20 to 1. But obviously we need more than carbs - the micro-nutrient value of a zucchini is much much better.

It's just that often the term "nutritional value" is misused to describe some sort of nutritional variety.

Eating a twinkie is ok (if you like the taste) it's very rich in energy when compared to a zucchini. There micro-nutrient profiles are worlds apart but the carbs structures once digested are really the same.

(and no I'm not suggesting someone only feed on Twinkies or zucchinis...)

DavPul

(and no I'm not suggesting someone only feed on Twinkies or zucchinis...)

Of course you aren't. As all iifym people do, you're insisting that the twinkie person eat tomato paste and French fries as well, and ONLY eat those three things.

Because it's not iifym&m

neanderthin

(and no I'm not suggesting someone only feed on Twinkies or zucchinis...)

Of course you aren't. As all iifym people do, you're insisting that the twinkie person eat tomato paste and French fries as well, and ONLY eat those three things.

Because it's not iifym&m

lol

dolliesdaughter

I just measure out and eat 1 portion of full flavored foods. LF and FF cheese taste like rubber, I would rather eat a little of real cheese that a whole lot off LF or FF. Down 106 LBS by doing that.

zyxst

Hey have you met http://www.myfitnesspal.com/profile/tiberiusclaudis ?

I gotta say...when I think of all the people that you two would save.......

...it makes me grow a big rubbery one. *nods* true story

La5Vega5Girl

All carbohydrates- every type you can imagine- after being processed in the gut and liver are released from the liver into the bloodstream as 95% glucose, with 2-3% fructose, and the rest galactose. All of these are simple six-carbon molecules.

ALL carbohydrates.

Just FYI.

In Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, of course.

i understand this to a degree, but have a hard time believing that a twinkie's carbs are "the same" as carbs from zucchini

Ok - maybe his post does have a reason.

Why is it hard to understand that twinkie and zucchini carbs are the same?

Let's look at something as simple as water. If you take soup, blood, drinking water, urine or sea water and filter out the gunk, boil it to evaporation and re-condense the vapor back into water it is just water. It is basically undecipherable from the source.
This very basic process led the early Greeks (Democritus and Lucretius are at the heart of this) composed the idea that things around us composed entirely of various elements called atoms - these basic building blocks are interchangeable - a "you" carbon is no different than a "dog" carbon or a "star" carbon.

If I use a chemical process to create a sugar for the Twinkie with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and I create the the same sugar in a zucchini via photosynthesis - the resulting sugar - if they have the same chemical and structural formulas are truly indistinguishable. The carbs themselves are the same.

What is different is "all the other stuff" that comes along with a Twinkie or a zucchini, the ratio of sugars, etc. But that single molecule and the resulting glucose once the liver gets done with it - indistinguishable at the molecular level. The Twinkie provides more nutritional value than a zucchini - that's right - an ounce of Twinkie provides more carbs than an ounce of zucchini - by a wopping ratio of 20 to 1. But obviously we need more than carbs - the micro-nutrient value of a zucchini is much much better.

It's just that often the term "nutritional value" is misused to describe some sort of nutritional variety.

Eating a twinkie is ok (if you like the taste) it's very rich in energy when compared to a zucchini. There micro-nutrient profiles are worlds apart but the carbs structures once digested are really the same.

(and no I'm not suggesting someone only feed on Twinkies or zucchinis...)

it sounds a bit condescending to me that you would ask me why it's so difficult for me to understand. i was making a more simple point. previous post said all carbs are the same, i personally do not feel that a twinkie and a zucchini are the same, although they both contain carbs. "a carb is a carb" doesn't apply in my life personally. i wasn't looking for a lesson in chemistry or nutrition.

EvgeniZyntx

All carbohydrates- every type you can imagine- after being processed in the gut and liver are released from the liver into the bloodstream as 95% glucose, with 2-3% fructose, and the rest galactose. All of these are simple six-carbon molecules.

ALL carbohydrates.

Just FYI.

In Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, of course.

No reason to read that book OP or anyone else. It's just a bunch of nonsense that that member posts every post. Basically using mfp as marketing and the site allows it.

Guyton's is an excellent reference book in General Physiology - It was my go-to in junior year in college. For general medical physiology.
But our poster doesn't need Guyton's as a reference to her nutritional position.

I doubt Guyton's has what our breakfast skipper poster writes above quite like that. For example, fiber is a carbohydrate and not digested - of the dietary carbohydrates that are digested, yes, they all end up primarily as glucose. So no, not ALL carbohydrates. Furthermore, the liver is a very complex organ and it's function with dietary carbs can't be reduced to glucose output - just to mention one process - dietary carbs (and the resulting glucose) are also used up to make a variety of glycoproteins - a simple example is transferrin, synthesized directly in the liver. Some ... Anyway, Guyton's is rather poor source of info on transferrin and other glycoprotein synthesis - barely makes a passing mention on page 46 of my edition.

As good as Guyton's is, I wish he'd stop using it as a call to authority - I loved that text book, he's killing it.

But I don't even know what that has to do with what the OP is writing.

Good reference or not that's not my issue. My issue is that poster pushes that on every single post that user makes on every single subject no matter what it is. MFP will issue strikes or warnings to people who are not "nice" but to someone pushing a book that the person clearly has a vested interest in, nothing. It's a little absurd imo.

I think he's got his skip breakfast book that he tries to sell - he is not in any way linked to the sale or edition of Guyton's. That's another reference and really it is THE medical physiology textbook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Guyton)

He has no vested interest in the book, Guyton is dead and every medical school uses it in some way - he's using it as a proxy for "science". I think the references to selling his actual breakfast pamphlet/book are not allowed.

It's like referencing any text book - except this guy only has one card in his hand.
I agree with you, he could move on.

I'd think by now he would have moved on to Silverthorn or Fox.

Anyway - Guyton's is available in pdf format.

paperpudding

Personally, modification and moderation both have a place in my diet (meaning the broader term of way of eating).

Sometimes I'll use low-fat/FF/sugar free/low-cal, etc. versions of some foods because the change doesn't bother me but it saves on some calories, letting me either have more of it or more of something else. Other times… I'd rather just eat the "real thing" but have less.

For example: low-fat mayo. Saves me a TON of calories… but still gives me what I'm looking for when I'm putting mayo on/in something. But I don't do sugar free chocolate for example. Totally not the same.

I love to find "modification" recipes for the typically high-cal foods (Mexican, Italian(including pizza), Chinese, and of course desserts). I may try it and love it and decide to adopt it on a permanent basis. Or I may decide it's not worth it and just practice moderation.

For me… this is what makes it possible to make it a lifestyle change. It means I can still enjoy the things that I like -either through modifications on a recipe- or through simply eating less of it.

I think this is a great approach - it isnt modification OR moderation.

For most people it is a bit of each - moderation on those things you really do not want to change to something else so you just have smaller portions of them or have them less often - modification on those things you dont mind as alternatives - be it stevia, low fat mayo, skim milk etc.
Or even pizza.

EvgeniZyntx

All carbohydrates- every type you can imagine- after being processed in the gut and liver are released from the liver into the bloodstream as 95% glucose, with 2-3% fructose, and the rest galactose. All of these are simple six-carbon molecules.

ALL carbohydrates.

Just FYI.

In Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, of course.

i understand this to a degree, but have a hard time believing that a twinkie's carbs are "the same" as carbs from zucchini

Ok - maybe his post does have a reason.

Why is it hard to understand that twinkie and zucchini carbs are the same?

Let's look at something as simple as water. If you take soup, blood, drinking water, urine or sea water and filter out the gunk, boil it to evaporation and re-condense the vapor back into water it is just water. It is basically undecipherable from the source.
This very basic process led the early Greeks (Democritus and Lucretius are at the heart of this) composed the idea that things around us composed entirely of various elements called atoms - these basic building blocks are interchangeable - a "you" carbon is no different than a "dog" carbon or a "star" carbon.

If I use a chemical process to create a sugar for the Twinkie with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and I create the the same sugar in a zucchini via photosynthesis - the resulting sugar - if they have the same chemical and structural formulas are truly indistinguishable. The carbs themselves are the same.

What is different is "all the other stuff" that comes along with a Twinkie or a zucchini, the ratio of sugars, etc. But that single molecule and the resulting glucose once the liver gets done with it - indistinguishable at the molecular level. The Twinkie provides more nutritional value than a zucchini - that's right - an ounce of Twinkie provides more carbs than an ounce of zucchini - by a wopping ratio of 20 to 1. But obviously we need more than carbs - the micro-nutrient value of a zucchini is much much better.

It's just that often the term "nutritional value" is misused to describe some sort of nutritional variety.

Eating a twinkie is ok (if you like the taste) it's very rich in energy when compared to a zucchini. There micro-nutrient profiles are worlds apart but the carbs structures once digested are really the same.

(and no I'm not suggesting someone only feed on Twinkies or zucchinis...)

it sounds a bit condescending to me that you would ask me why it's so difficult for me to understand. i was making a more simple point. previous post said all carbs are the same, i personally do not feel that a twinkie and a zucchini are the same, although they both contain carbs. "a carb is a carb" doesn't apply in my life personally. i wasn't looking for a lesson in chemistry or nutrition.

Perception of condescending is on you. The question isn't rhetorical - The carbs on the molecular level are the same. You used the term 'understand to a degree' and 'hard time believing' - so I was asking what it is that you don't get about that. I am, literally, interested in what you don't get.

An explanation was, science knowledge being what it is on this site, general information that might benefit you or others. If you are offended by a science lesson or even the basic level of my discussion - well, this whole thread is kind of a ground up hamburger of concepts and words ready to be fed to the cat.

eta: missing 'of'

MelodyandBarbells

All carbohydrates- every type you can imagine- after being processed in the gut and liver are released from the liver into the bloodstream as 95% glucose, with 2-3% fructose, and the rest galactose. All of these are simple six-carbon molecules.

ALL carbohydrates.

Just FYI.

In Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, of course.

i understand this to a degree, but have a hard time believing that a twinkie's carbs are "the same" as carbs from zucchini

Ok - maybe his post does have a reason.

Why is it hard to understand that twinkie and zucchini carbs are the same?

Let's look at something as simple as water. If you take soup, blood, drinking water, urine or sea water and filter out the gunk, boil it to evaporation and re-condense the vapor back into water it is just water. It is basically undecipherable from the source.
This very basic process led the early Greeks (Democritus and Lucretius are at the heart of this) composed the idea that things around us composed entirely of various elements called atoms - these basic building blocks are interchangeable - a "you" carbon is no different than a "dog" carbon or a "star" carbon.

If I use a chemical process to create a sugar for the Twinkie with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and I create the the same sugar in a zucchini via photosynthesis - the resulting sugar - if they have the same chemical and structural formulas are truly indistinguishable. The carbs themselves are the same.

What is different is "all the other stuff" that comes along with a Twinkie or a zucchini, the ratio of sugars, etc. But that single molecule and the resulting glucose once the liver gets done with it - indistinguishable at the molecular level. The Twinkie provides more nutritional value than a zucchini - that's right - an ounce of Twinkie provides more carbs than an ounce of zucchini - by a wopping ratio of 20 to 1. But obviously we need more than carbs - the micro-nutrient value of a zucchini is much much better.

It's just that often the term "nutritional value" is misused to describe some sort of nutritional variety.

Eating a twinkie is ok (if you like the taste) it's very rich in energy when compared to a zucchini. There micro-nutrient profiles are worlds apart but the carbs structures once digested are really the same.

(and no I'm not suggesting someone only feed on Twinkies or zucchinis...)

it sounds a bit condescending to me that you would ask me why it's so difficult for me to understand. i was making a more simple point. previous post said all carbs are the same, i personally do not feel that a twinkie and a zucchini are the same, although they both contain carbs. "a carb is a carb" doesn't apply in my life personally. i wasn't looking for a lesson in chemistry or nutrition.

Perception of condescending is on you. The question isn't rhetorical - The carbs on the molecular level are the same. You used the term 'understand to a degree' and 'hard time believing' - so I was asking what it is that you don't get about that. I am, literally, interested in what you don't get.

An explanation was, science knowledge being what it is on this site, general information that might benefit you or others. If you are offended by a science lesson or even the basic level of my discussion - well, this whole thread is kind of a ground up hamburger of concepts and words ready to be fed to the cat.

eta: missing 'of'

Well I for one enjoyed the chemistry lesson, and especially the prose of comparing human carbon to that found on a star. Excellent pairing for my morning coffee and cake!

thin2win777

I just measure out and eat 1 portion of full flavored foods. LF and FF cheese taste like rubber, I would rather eat a little of real cheese that a whole lot off LF or FF. Down 106 LBS by doing that.

sounds like you have a lot of control--congrats!!!:drinker: