An Argument Against Fast Food
Replies
-
agree with the wheat stuff. eventually wanna wean myself off it.
i actually don't eat many acidic foods. I'm much more versed in this than you given that I need to eat a low-acid diet to control my reflux. i also drink highly alkaline water.i'm sure you know much more about celiac disease and gluten sensitivity than i do. don't doubt it. however, those things dont apply to me because i'm not noticeably sensitive to gluten (ie: i don't get symptoms).
really? that reflux might tell you otherwise
Yep. Might want to look into that, Coach....... (it's a symptom of gluten sensitivity..... just sayin'....)0 -
had a gluten free, dairy free pizza from dominos a couple weeks ago.
crucify me.
What is that, like, a plate of meat and vegetables? O.o
gluten free crust, sauce and veggies. vegan
You do really most GF substitutes are actually far more unhealthier than those containing gluten? I wouldn't touch that crap. And this is coming from a diagnosed coeliac, btw.
man... ate my post. but the ingredients are: Water, Rice Flour, Rice Starch, Potato Starch, Olive Oil, Evaporated Cane Juice, Tapioca Flour, Potato Flour, Fresh Yeast, Avicel, Salt, Calcium Propionate.
Only two in there I'd be worried about. (Avicel, Calcium Propionate)
Seriously? LOL
Unless you are gluten sensitive or intolerant (as I am) or have Celiac Disease I highly recommend you NOT speak to your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
You are missing the mark on the most OBVIOUS FELON in those ingredients above. FRESH YEAST.
It requires two rises therefore is not good for gluten-free products.
Period.
girl you need to relax.
That's you're answer to being proven wrong?
How about you just say something like, "Oh wow, I had no idea"
It would make you seem more human and marginally humble.
You can't admit you were wrong, eh, or that someone had slightly more info than you?
i'm sure you know much more about celiac disease and gluten sensitivity than i do. don't doubt it. however, those things dont apply to me because i'm not noticeably sensitive to gluten (ie: i don't get symptoms).
Um, then why are you ordering a GLUTEN FREE pizza?
Because I personally feel that we'd all be better off eating less gluten. I can eat whatever I want. Lol
LOL? Really?
So with your "LOL"... you are mocking those that cannot eat whatever they want? Really?
So you're better than those that have restricted foods they can eat?
Dude, do you really find that AMUSING???
But you ingested gluten with the yeast up there that I indicated above that was not a gluten-free yeast.
You couldn't even be "lowered" to the level of giving props to someone who educated you on the subject.
Wow. Canoe alert. Canoe alert.......0 -
There is no point in an all or nothing debate here. Everything is okay in moderation0
-
Unfortunately, most foods in the average North American's diet require almost as much energy to assimilate as they contain, because while they are high in calories, they are low in nutrients.
Essentially the point is this: because fast food is not nutritionally dense, your body has to work harder to get fewer nutrients, which is a WASTE of energy. Energy that could otherwise be used on anything from recovery - which would allow you to train harder and more often - to mental energy, to just feeling better in your day to day life.
Both of these ideas are false. But let's imagine to a minute that the average NA diet DID require almost as much energy to assimilate as they contain....
Imagine a nation of undernourished, underfed people. On the average.
Basic idea just doesn't hold water.
actually while i get how you came to that - you're missing the point that when a body is undernourished, the brain continues to signal that it's "hungry" even if the stomach is full. this is what causes people who tend to eat a lot of processed foods to keep eating MORE than they should. The body eventually gets the nutrients, but only because they've overeaten. Thus the obesity epidemic in the US.
How does the brain know that the body is "undernourished" according to you? What nutrients do you think that the body needs to receive to close the chemical pathway of satiation? Because if you think you can do that, hell, you've got a weight loss product that will revolutionize the 7000 man-years my former company spent on weight loss management products.0 -
Links to the 2012 article where he states he eats 12,000 calories a day?
I'll wait! Furious Pete (the guy in one of your old links...) =/= Michael Phelps btwOne sec - wrong ones![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
I remember seeing a Phelps interview on Jimmy Kimmel where he said it was a myth, but hey if you show me some interviews that say otherwise then I'll be happy to retract my statement.
I've found interviews from 2008 and 2012 that would both support and refute the 12,000 calorie diet of Michael Phelps - and from sources that "should" be fact checking their stuff.
So far, I've found figures from articles saying he eats 3,000, 4000 and 12,000.
Here's another article from the Guardian supporting my claim (dated July 2012):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/eat-like-olympian-exercise
Regardless of how many calories he eats, my point was the he eats a lot of them from processed "unhealthy" foods, like an entire pizza. Which for me blows the original argument out of the water. I had a friend that needed to eat 5000 calories to maintain his bulk and he struggled to do it clean.0 -
The biggest component in all of this that is always missed is the fact that stress affects your health in a negative way. It affects your immune system, can produce anxiety and cause or increase other mental illnesses, and also makes you unhappy. If you are unhappy/stressed by purposely not eating things you like, you aren't "maximizing" your health.
And the other thing is that the whole point of being healthy is to have a life that is worth living. Even if you can somehow manage to squeeze out an extra 0.01% 'healthiness' by going to ridiculous lengths of deprivation, even ignoring the stress thing above, you are missing the whole point because the amount of happiness you gain from 0.01% better health is less than the amount you've lost by wasting your time with the hysteria of trying to find and live by a 'perfect' diet.
So, in fact, for people who LIKE fast food, in certain quantities it IS better for your health to eat it than it is to not eat it.
That IS an interesting point, and something worth talking about.
What's really amazing about this, is that the first chapter of the book I've been referencing - you know, the one all about a vegan diet for athletes - is titled "To Reduce Stress and Increase Vitality"
According to the book (and the Dr.s who stand behind the claims), there are three main types of stressors - complementary, uncomplimentary and production. Complementary are things like exercise, where we put ourselves through stress, but for a good reason. This kind is healthy. The second is uncomplimentary - which is everything from psychological stress to environmental stress to... nutritional stress. the last is production - which means is the stress from striving to achieve a specific goal. Sometimes necessary with good rewards, but can affect you adversely along the way.
But that nutritional stress. What that means is how much the things you eat affect your body, how easy they are for your body to break down, "essentially, stress created by food because of its unhealthy properties. Not eating the right foods, not eating enough of the right foods, not getting the necessary vitamins, minerals, enzymes, proteins, fiber, fatty acids, antioxidants, probiotics, is a major source of stress on our bodies. Without these nutritional building blocks, the body lacks the components it needs to regenerate completely and effectively. The result is a weaker, less resilient body and, of course, more stress."
So really it depends on how you want to look at it.
Personally, eating better doesn't cause me any stress at all, and the benefit of lowering my nutritional stress is great. However if eating healthy does cause you production stress, or uncomplimentary stress, then maybe the decrease in nutritional stress isn't worth it to you.
However, nutritional stress causes (again, according to the book and the doctors that stand behind it) 70% of uncomplimentary stress. That's an awful lot.0 -
There is no point in an all or nothing debate here. Everything is okay in moderation
*Everything*???0 -
Hi, ma'am. I work at McDonald's and I was wondering what you eat for breakfast (if anything) at your restaurant? I work mornings so I usually just get a Sausage McMuffin, apple slices, and water.
If you get the apple slices at McDonald..are they still bad for you because you got them at a fast food place? I mean..according to the coach...Fast food isn't "real food"...just just curious.
Yeah and that side salad with grilled chicken breast and no salad dressing I had yesterday afternoon from McDonald's must not be real food either and must have been really bad for me.0 -
I-17... YES!0
-
The biggest component in all of this that is always missed is the fact that stress affects your health in a negative way. It affects your immune system, can produce anxiety and cause or increase other mental illnesses, and also makes you unhappy. If you are unhappy/stressed by purposely not eating things you like, you aren't "maximizing" your health.
And the other thing is that the whole point of being healthy is to have a life that is worth living. Even if you can somehow manage to squeeze out an extra 0.01% 'healthiness' by going to ridiculous lengths of deprivation, even ignoring the stress thing above, you are missing the whole point because the amount of happiness you gain from 0.01% better health is less than the amount you've lost by wasting your time with the hysteria of trying to find and live by a 'perfect' diet.
So, in fact, for people who LIKE fast food, in certain quantities it IS better for your health to eat it than it is to not eat it.
But everything we do in life causes stress. There is stress added in simply waking up in the morning.. Food choices are no exception. Eating healthy creates stress, because you have to make the choice to eat healthy. Eating unhealthy creates stress because not only do you have to ignore how unhealthy your choice is, you also have to deal with the potential health ramiification of said choice. Deprevation is never good in any case. Never eating a piece of fried chicken when you really want one is not going to help you no matter what. All that will do is lead to the inevitable bucket of KFC being consumed in it's entiretly by 1 person. Plus it's really not hard to choose the carrot over the big mac once you've made the choice to change your life and commited to it.
seriously.. I would rather make the easier choice now than the harder ones down the road.0 -
So, you want to make the easier choice now, then the harder ones later? Or would you rather make an easy choice now than a harder choice later?seriously.. I would rather make the easier choice now then the harder ones down the road.0 -
I avoid fast food as much as possible...but there is the odd time when all I want is a cheeseburger.0
-
I think this thread is more appropriately titled "An Argument Against Orthorexia."
Here are some things that IMO can be bad for you:
-Thinking that all foods are either universally "good" or "bad" regardless of context and amount consumed.
-Thinking that "whole" and "natural" foods are automatically superior to anything that isn't "whole" or "natural."
-Thinking that "processing" a food is some sort of magical thing that always causes the result to be "bad for you." (See above again.)
-Thinking that there is such a thing as a "perfect day" within a diet.
-Thinking that anything away from a "perfect diet" will somehow cause permanent/irreparable damage to one's body.
-Thinking that passing through a drive-thru window causes food to become poisonous.
In reality, people can smoke an occasional cigarette or cigar and live just as long and healthy as if they didn't. People who suffer from smoking have to smoke hundreds of thousands of times in order to get lung cancer or emphysema. The same goes for alcohol, people can do that occasionally and not destroy or even damage their liver, etc. The same goes for "fast food" and "processed" foods as well as "natural" foods.
I also found it odd to see someone who took 20 months to lose 12 pounds and is still at least 73 pounds overweight telling other people what they should or shouldn't be eating.0 -
I think this thread is more appropriately titled "An Argument Against Orthorexia."
Here are some things that IMO can be bad for you:
-Thinking that all foods are either universally "good" or "bad" regardless of context and amount consumed.
-Thinking that "whole" and "natural" foods are automatically superior to anything that isn't "whole" or "natural."
-Thinking that "processing" a food is some sort of magical thing that always causes the result to be "bad for you." (See above again.)
-Thinking that there is such a thing as a "perfect day" within a diet.
-Thinking that anything away from a "perfect diet" will somehow cause permanent/irreparable damage to one's body.
-Thinking that passing through a drive-thru window causes food to become poisonous.
In reality, people can smoke an occasional cigarette or cigar and live just as long and healthy as if they didn't. People who suffer from smoking have to smoke hundreds of thousands of times in order to get lung cancer or emphysema. The same goes for alcohol, people can do that occasionally and not destroy or even damage their liver, etc. The same goes for "fast food" and "processed" foods as well as "natural" foods.
I also found it odd to see someone who took 20 months to lose 12 pounds and is still at least 73 pounds overweight telling other people what they should or shouldn't be eating.
would you be willing to respond to my actual post regarding stress? instead of responding to something none of us has even said? I'm actually interested to hear your thoughts re: nutritional stress0 -
So, you want to make the easier choice now, then the harder ones later? Or would you rather make an easy choice now than a harder choice later?seriously.. I would rather make the easier choice now then the harder ones down the road.
In the end folks are going to eat how they want to eat. It's up to each one of us how we want to handle health short or long term. Me personally, If I eat processed foods I feel nauseous and stall my weight loss journey. Dropping sugar, white flour, fast food and such has given me so much more energy and I crave foods closest to their natural state. An advacado is like pudding to me now. Berries are heavenly. Brussel sprouts are so filling and good. Mushrooms are out of this world good. I get full faster and stay full. My skin is eczema free and my hair is growing long and healtly. Everyone else can have the junk but as for me and my house, we choose good health and an active life.0 -
I think the OP misses the point. The nutrient density of fast food isn't really the problem. In fact, some fast food is actually fairly nutritious.
The problem is it is highly palatable but also highly calorie dense. This makes over eating much more likely. This leads to weight gain. Excessive weight is probably the worst thing you can subject your body to even bearing in mind nutritional profile.
I think if you are new to dieting (and by implications have problems with dietary adherence - sticking to a diet) then fast food in general is best avoided or minimised if you can manage it. Then when you have a handle on your eating you can re introduce fast food with less to worry about.
Having said that if you simply cannot live without fast food then it is far better to keep eating it and get your weight down by keeping a calorie deficit then fall off the wagon and never get back on again. Getting the weight off should always be the primary health concern in my view.0 -
No it doesn't, because there are enough foods that I like and can eat in reasonable, satisfying amounts in order to stay in good health.Eating healthy creates stress, because you have to make the choice to eat healthy.
No it doesn't create stress because I don't have an irrational fear of food and I know that it isn't "unhealthy" in the amounts I choose to eat it. I also don't have to deal with a potential health ramification because, again, there isn't one. Eating an occasional meal from a fast food joint isn't going to make any more difference to my health or longevity than drinking an occasional couple beers.Eating unhealthy creates stress because not only do you have to ignore how unhealthy your choice is, you also have to deal with the potential health ramiification of said choice.
Can you elaborate? The easier choice would be ____, and the harder choice(s) would be ____.seriously.. I would rather make the easier choice now than the harder ones down the road.0 -
0 -
I think the OP misses the point. The nutrient density of fast food isn't really the problem. In fact, some fast food is actually fairly nutritious.
The problem is it is highly palatable but also highly calorie dense. This makes over eating much more likely. This leads to weight gain. Excessive weight is probably the worst thing you can subject your body to even bearing in mind nutritional profile.
I think if you are new to dieting (and by implications have problems with dietary adherence - sticking to a diet) then fast food in general is best avoided or minimised if you can manage it. Then when you have a handle on your eating you can re introduce fast food with less to worry about.
Having said that if you simply cannot live without fast food then it is far better to keep eating it and get your weight down by keeping a calorie deficit then fall off the wagon and never get back on again. Getting the weight off should always be the primary health concern in my view.
I'm confused about this. So you don't agree with the nutrition specialists and doctors involved in writing the book who say that the reason for overeating is that the brain doesn't turn off the "hungry" signals due to lack of nutrient nourishment?
Do you ever wonder why - after eating a 1000 calorie fast food meal - you get hungry again relatively quickly? To me that gels perfectly with what the writer of the book is saying. Because the food is nutrient-sparce, as the body starts digesting it, it realizes its nutritional needs aren't being met, so it signals to brain to "get hungry" again so it can get more nutrients.
I'm not saying you're wrong - and obviously the fact that it tastes good plays a part - but I'm just interested in why you don't feel that the lack of nutrients plays a role.0 -
I think the OP misses the point. The nutrient density of fast food isn't really the problem. In fact, some fast food is actually fairly nutritious.
The problem is it is highly palatable but also highly calorie dense. This makes over eating much more likely. This leads to weight gain. Excessive weight is probably the worst thing you can subject your body to even bearing in mind nutritional profile.
I think if you are new to dieting (and by implications have problems with dietary adherence - sticking to a diet) then fast food in general is best avoided or minimised if you can manage it. Then when you have a handle on your eating you can re introduce fast food with less to worry about.
Having said that if you simply cannot live without fast food then it is far better to keep eating it and get your weight down by keeping a calorie deficit then fall off the wagon and never get back on again. Getting the weight off should always be the primary health concern in my view.
I'm confused about this. So you don't agree with the nutrition specialists and doctors involved in writing the book who say that the reason for overeating is that the brain doesn't turn off the "hungry" signals due to lack of nutrient nourishment?
Do you ever wonder why - after eating a 1000 calorie fast food meal - you get hungry again relatively quickly? To me that gels perfectly with what the writer of the book is saying. Because the food is nutrient-sparce, as the body starts digesting it, it realizes its nutritional needs aren't being met, so it signals to brain to "get hungry" again so it can get more nutrients.
I'm not saying you're wrong - and obviously the fact that it tastes good plays a part - but I'm just interested in why you don't feel that the lack of nutrients plays a role.
No.
It's not lack of nutrients. Every notice how you eat some broccoli and salad and feel hungry shortly after?
There are receptors in your stomach that detect how much your stomach has expanded(volume) and the calorie density.
If you eat just lettuce with no dressing or anything, it takes up a lot of volume but very little calories. You will get hungry shortly.
If you eat something very high in calories, such as olive oil(very little volume). You will get hungry again shortly. Or you can think of a candy bar, a lot of calories for the size.
You need both to feel full, calorie density and volume.
yeah you're exactly right. i think the kicker with fast food is that the caloric density doesn't equal the volume. for me to eat the SAME number of calories of greens, grilled chicken, etc, it will take up much more volume in my stomach than a big mac and fries. so after the 1000 calorie big mac meal, i'll get hungry faster because it didn't take up as much volume as the 1000 cal "healthy" meal for lack of a better term.
you're right, it may have less to do with nutrients in that regard.0 -
Can you elaborate? The easier choice would be ____, and the harder choice(s) would be ____.seriously.. I would rather make the easier choice now than the harder ones down the road.
[/quote]
To eat healthy now versus having all those health concern of the aged/elderly person who didnt' make the right choices while they were younger. Most of our illnessness can be avoided by eating right and living healthy.
Seriously?? Salad alone does not fill all your nutrient needs either, add some chicken to that and it lasts a lot longer. It is way better for you than the same exact thing happening after eating a big mac.. and you don't feeel crappy since you ate healthy and you're body isn't trying to work through unnatural chemcials and additives to get to what it needs.It's not lack of nutrients. Ever notice how you eat some broccoli and salad and feel hungry shortly after?0 -
I'm confused about this. So you don't agree with the nutrition specialists and doctors involved in writing the book who say that the reason for overeating is that the brain doesn't turn off the "hungry" signals due to lack of nutrient nourishment?
Do you ever wonder why - after eating a 1000 calorie fast food meal - you get hungry again relatively quickly? To me that gels perfectly with what the writer of the book is saying. Because the food is nutrient-sparce, as the body starts digesting it, it realizes its nutritional needs aren't being met, so it signals to brain to "get hungry" again so it can get more nutrients.
I'm not saying you're wrong - and obviously the fact that it tastes good plays a part - but I'm just interested in why you don't feel that the lack of nutrients plays a role.
Correct. I don't agree that that the principle reason for over eating is due to lack of nutrients which turn off hunger cues (I presume you are talking about leptin & ghrelin - if not please let me know) although it may be a contributing factor.
I think feelings of hunger do come about relatively quickly after consuming a fast food meal though as you say. I think this is for a number of reasons being a) it is a pleasurable experience on both a physiological level (dopamine triggers) and a psychological level so you begin to crave another serving b) fluctuating blood sugar levels as it is usually very sugary c) increased thirst which can also be confused for hunger as it is usually salty and d) the actual volume of food consumed at a sitting can be quite low (a Big Mac and fries is actually not that much food in terms of pure volume for example.)0 -
well.. fast food is not pleasurable for me to consume..If i eat it I feel sick and can't eat the rest of the day. A big mac is a pretty big burger in my opinion and fries.. well that all depends on the size you go with and how much they stuff it huh? I like to taste my food, not the grease it is cooked in. lol
It is high is salt and sugar esp when paired with soda as it usually is.
And as i've told you. You can't diary shame me. i don't eat enough. That's my biggest problem and I know it.. and it's a work in progress.Run along kid......grown folks talking. As it was stated in the last page and I have told you before and again, your daily dairy is horrible. You have no merit to speak on this subject.0 -
You are talking about something completely different with a similar name. I am talking about stress/worry/anxiety/etc which is accompanied by a physiological response involving stress hormones and has a measurable effect on the body, including immunosupression. Nobody has ever gotten PTSD from eating fast food. People do in fact get PTSD (and a whole array of anxiety disorders) from extended stress.would you be willing to respond to my actual post regarding stress? instead of responding to something none of us has even said? I'm actually interested to hear your thoughts re: nutritional stress
Here are other problems that can be caused by stress:
Heart disease
Sleep problems
Digestive problems
Depression
Obesity
Memory impairment
Worsening of skin conditions, such as eczema
Since stress can be caused, increased, or reduced by a placebo, it is also possible that people who change their diet to exclude certain foods can experience a placebo effect, reducing stress and thus getting results such as skin conditions clearing up and suddenly sleeping great. If the placebo effect works for you, then more power to you! I use it all the time, on purpose. (The awesomest part is that knowing it's a placebo still doesn't prevent it from working.)
As far as "nutritional stress" this makes some pretty bold assumptions that the body's need for "proper nourishment" or the body's being harmed by what you would claim to be "bad food" goes moment by moment and there is no room for deviation from an exactly perfect amount of input. It's much more likely that the body's need for incoming nourishment is buffered by things such as stores of proteins, glycogen, ATP, fats, and tolerance for variations in blood levels of various micronutrients.
It is known that longer-term malnutrition can effect the body in bad ways, and can also mess with the availability of fuel and neurotransmitters, altering brain function, which is why many cults use crappy diets and lack of sleep as part of their mind control regimens, and why people who fast end up getting stoned by malnutrition and think they are having a personal relationship with their preferred version of a creator.
But that doesn't necessarily extend to the short-term. Even if your body optimally needs 1000 mg of vitamin X per day, this does not mean that your body is going to be harmed because the graph of input isn't a perfectly flat line with no bumps across all time, second by second. It doesn't mean your body is undergoing "nutritional stress" by taking in 1500 on Monday and 500 on Tuesday, unless that micronutrient has a half-life short enough to fall below whatever threshold is required to maintain its function between Monday and Tuesday.
In other words, if you are going to propose "nutritional stress" as something that could effect a body, it is not realistic to assume this is a linear relationship, and you need to show at what points "overdose" or "underdose" actually causes bad things to happen. I would find it highly dubious that actual bad effects would occur within the span between two meals, which is the amount of time we're talking about for someone who eats fast food only occasionally. Especially when you consider the way our ancestors lived, and the fact that not a single one of any of our ancestors failed to survive to adulthood and find a mate and produce offspring while living that way.
Or, as has been said many times, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.0 -
I'm confused about this. So you don't agree with the nutrition specialists and doctors involved in writing the book who say that the reason for overeating is that the brain doesn't turn off the "hungry" signals due to lack of nutrient nourishment?
Do you ever wonder why - after eating a 1000 calorie fast food meal - you get hungry again relatively quickly? To me that gels perfectly with what the writer of the book is saying. Because the food is nutrient-sparce, as the body starts digesting it, it realizes its nutritional needs aren't being met, so it signals to brain to "get hungry" again so it can get more nutrients.
I'm not saying you're wrong - and obviously the fact that it tastes good plays a part - but I'm just interested in why you don't feel that the lack of nutrients plays a role.
Correct. I don't agree that that the principle reason for over eating is due to lack of nutrients which turn off hunger cues (I presume you are talking about leptin & ghrelin - if not please let me know) although it may be a contributing factor.
I think feelings of hunger do come about relatively quickly after consuming a fast food meal though as you say. I think this is for a number of reasons being a) it is a pleasurable experience on both a physiological level (dopamine triggers) and a psychological level so you begin to crave another serving b) fluctuating blood sugar levels as it is usually very sugary c) increased thirst which can also be confused for hunger as it is usually salty and d) the actual volume of food consumed at a sitting can be quite low (a Big Mac and fries is actually not that much food in terms of pure volume for example.)
ok cool. we're actually on the same page. there are absolutely many contributing factors, and you listed a lot of really great ones there. thanks for that.0 -
Hate to tell you that many top and elite Olympian athletes eat fast food. Why? Because of calorie content. If you burn 8,000 to 10,000 calories a day, they CAN'T eat "clean" all day and perform well because they would always be eating and full.Before you flame without reading the post, please keep in mind that while I have not listed the sources, Brendan Brazier, top triathlete and nutritional specialist lists ALL his sources in his book (Thrive: The Vegan Nutrition Guide to Optimal Performance in Sports and Life). It would take pages to list them all here.
I'm not saying any diet is better than another, just that I found this quite interesting to read, and thought others might too.A calorie is defined as a measure of food energy. It might seem logical, then, to assume that the more calories consumed, the more energy our body is supplied with. Of course, we know this is not the case, otherwise people with the highest energy would be those who eat at fast food restaurants. By simply consuming more calories, we are not guaranteed more energy. Many conventional nutrition books would have us believe that if we expend a certain amount of energy, it can be quantified and replaced. They suggest that by simply adhering to calorie counts, with no consideration of other factors, we can accurately gauge the amount of food we need to consume to maintain low body weight and high energy. But it doesn't work that way.
Unfortunately, most foods in the average North American's diet require almost as much energy to assimilate as they contain, because while they are high in calories, they are low in nutrients. The nutritional value of food stated on the food packaging label refers to what is in the food - not what the body actually gets from it. By consuming more easily assimilated foods, you can conserve a large amount of energy, therefore reducing stress in the body, and helping with recovery. There are two main reasons for this. First, foods in their natural, nutrient-dense state can be digested and assimilated with less energy expenditure than processed, refined foods. Second, when more nutrient-rich foods are present in the diet, the body does not have to eat as much as if it were fed less nutrient-rich foods. Today, I consume 30 percent fewer calories than I did just two years ago, yet I have more energy - by means of conservation, rather than consumption.
Essentially the point is this: because fast food is not nutritionally dense, your body has to work harder to get fewer nutrients, which is a WASTE of energy. Energy that could otherwise be used on anything from recovery - which would allow you to train harder and more often - to mental energy, to just feeling better in your day to day life. The more steam lined your system, and the less it has to work to digest the food you introduce, the better YOU will operate. The more weight you'll lose. The better you will feel.
But hey, I'm not here to say you HAVE to do it. I'm not even saying you should! If you'd rather eat fast food because you really enjoy it, then I would never advocate giving it up! But if your goals are to perform better and to feel better, not just lose weight, it may be worth considering.
Have at it. And let's try and keep it civil, K?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Lol, wait isn't losing weight based on "wasting" more energy than you take in?even if it's a small portion of your diet, the body still wastes energy trying to assimilate it. it's still a net loss in energy compared to the nutrient-dense alternative.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
As far as "nutritional stress" this makes some pretty bold assumptions that the body's need for "proper nourishment" or the body's being harmed by what you would claim to be "bad food" goes moment by moment and there is no room for deviation from an exactly perfect amount of input. It's much more likely that the body's need for incoming nourishment is buffered by things such as stores of proteins, glycogen, ATP, fats, and tolerance for variations in blood levels of various micronutrients.
It is known that longer-term malnutrition can effect the body in bad ways, and can also mess with the availability of fuel and neurotransmitters, altering brain function, which is why many cults use crappy diets and lack of sleep as part of their mind control regimens, and why people who fast end up getting stoned by malnutrition and think they are having a personal relationship with their preferred version of a creator.
But that doesn't necessarily extend to the short-term. Even if your body optimally needs 1000 mg of vitamin X per day, this does not mean that your body is going to be harmed because the graph of input isn't a perfectly flat line with no bumps across all time, second by second. It doesn't mean your body is undergoing "nutritional stress" by taking in 1500 on Monday and 500 on Tuesday, unless that micronutrient has a half-life short enough to fall below whatever threshold is required to maintain its function between Monday and Tuesday.
In other words, if you are going to propose "nutritional stress" as something that could effect a body, it is not realistic to assume this is a linear relationship, and you need to show at what points "overdose" or "underdose" actually causes bad things to happen. I would find it highly dubious that actual bad effects would occur within the span between two meals, which is the amount of time we're talking about for someone who eats fast food only occasionally. Especially when you consider the way our ancestors lived, and the fact that not a single one of any of our ancestors failed to survive to adulthood and find a mate and produce offspring while living that way.
Or, as has been said many times, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
i actually completely agree with much of what you just wrote. i never said that one instance of fast food eating will cause a horrific reaction in your body, or that you will experience nutritional stress from it. i've always maintained through these discussions that it's the repeated, constant ingesting of fast food that will slowly begin to take a toll. an isolated incident - frankly even eating it once or twice a week - will more than likely not make a difference. I think it's a different story when it becomes a daily thing.0 -
Hate to tell you that many top and elite Olympian athletes eat fast food. Why? Because of calorie content. If you burn 8,000 to 10,000 calories a day, they CAN'T eat "clean" all day and perform well because they would always be eating and full.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I've never had to eat so many calories personally but while you probably would have a difficult (or impossible) time eating 'clean' to get there, I suspect there are some better alternatives. And I wonder if that's all they eat or if there are nutritious meals mixed in there too. I don't think an elite athlete's increased caloric requirements stipulate that the micronutrients they need is increased. That's probably fairly constant. All they really need are the extra calories at that point. But they've entered a realm that most people don't exist in.0 -
If you actually think that eating fast food once a month is going to cause you all kinds of horrible illnesses in your middle age, then by placebo-induced stress, you will experience bad health effects. But it wouldn't be from the fast food or any of its contents, it would be from your own extended periods of anxiety.To eat healthy now versus having all those health concern of the aged/elderly person who didnt' make the right choices while they were younger. Most of our illnessness can be avoided by eating right and living healthy.
That is exactly why I said that this thread is an argument against orthorexia.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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