A Calorie is a Caloire is a...... let's compare...
Replies
-
I'd take the salmon minus the quinoa....b/c I love seafood. I'll take fish over steak anyday.0
-
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
The problem with all this is that you can't point to any particular health effect caused by the burrito that's not caused by the other meal.0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
So when people lose weight do blood markers of health generally worsen or improve regardless of diet they followed to lose the weight?
careful, we're getting to elite territory again. stop being intentionally obtuse.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.0 -
Well, a calorie is just a measure of energy, nothing more, so in that context a calorie is just a calorie and not to be confused with food preferences where their matrix is composed of different nutrients, which can have advantages or disadvantages for individuals and their goals based on context and dosage. Either meal could be beneficial depending on what else that person ate on any given day.
^ 100% this.
I'd go for the burrito in most situations due to taste.0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
The problem with all this is that you can't point to any particular health effect caused by the burrito that's not caused by the other meal.
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
So when people lose weight do blood markers of health generally worsen or improve regardless of diet they followed to lose the weight?
careful, we're getting to elite territory again. stop being intentionally obtuse.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.
i'm not arguing semantics with you. you know exactly what i'm saying.0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
So when people lose weight do blood markers of health generally worsen or improve regardless of diet they followed to lose the weight?
careful, we're getting to elite territory again. stop being intentionally obtuse.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.
i'm not arguing semantics with you. you know exactly what i'm saying.
Not semantics, answer the question. Or is it that you won't answer it, since it directly contradicts the nonsense that was spouted above?0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
So when people lose weight do blood markers of health generally worsen or improve regardless of diet they followed to lose the weight?
careful, we're getting to elite territory again. stop being intentionally obtuse.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.
i'm not arguing semantics with you. you know exactly what i'm saying.
Not semantics, answer the question. Or is it that you won't answer it, since it directly contradicts the nonsense that was spouted above?
please see my answer to jonnythan. thanks.0 -
Meanwhile becoming deficient in probably all of his micro nutrients. Many people are overfed or adequately fed and still starving; he is a perfect example of that.But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.
"I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
So he ate a bit of veg and had vitamins 'artificially'.
All the evidence we have points to his body being healthier than he was before.0 -
Meanwhile becoming deficient in probably all of his micro nutrients. Many people are overfed or adequately fed and still starving; he is a perfect example of that.But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.
"I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
So he ate a bit of veg and had vitamins 'artificially'.
All the evidence we have points to his body being healthier than he was before.
and yet even he says you shouldn't do it.
0 -
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.0 -
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.
Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old0 -
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.
Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old
Ray Lewis can outperform 99% of college football players. That's completely irrelevant. A 40 year old world-class athlete will still be better than virtually everyone else on the planet at his sport, but he's still inferior to his 26 year old self (assuming he was as well trained at 26 as he is at 40).
This is completely irrelevant. You're implying that eating the burrito instead of the salmon leads to lower physical performance. That claim is nonsense and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.0 -
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.
Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old
Ray Lewis can outperform 99% of college football players. That's completely irrelevant. A 40 year old world-class athlete will still be better than virtually everyone else on the planet at his sport, but he's still inferior to his 26 year old self (assuming he was as well trained at 26 as he is at 40).
This is completely irrelevant. You're implying that eating the burrito instead of the salmon leads to lower physical performance. That claim is nonsense and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
nowhere did i say that. i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health. in fact, i specifically said that this one meal in a vacuum would have no effect on health. c'mon - at least read what I'm writing.0 -
Bump to read later0
-
i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.
Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old
Ray Lewis can outperform 99% of college football players. That's completely irrelevant. A 40 year old world-class athlete will still be better than virtually everyone else on the planet at his sport, but he's still inferior to his 26 year old self (assuming he was as well trained at 26 as he is at 40).
This is completely irrelevant. You're implying that eating the burrito instead of the salmon leads to lower physical performance. That claim is nonsense and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.0 -
I would have option 1 it would sustain me longer & love salmon but I havent had a real burrito since 99 last time I was in the states.....yummy hehe0
-
i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.
Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old
Ray Lewis can outperform 99% of college football players. That's completely irrelevant. A 40 year old world-class athlete will still be better than virtually everyone else on the planet at his sport, but he's still inferior to his 26 year old self (assuming he was as well trained at 26 as he is at 40).
This is completely irrelevant. You're implying that eating the burrito instead of the salmon leads to lower physical performance. That claim is nonsense and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?0 -
I would chose the first meal any day over the second. I am sorry but I do not believe a calorie is a calorie. I believe yes it might be a calorie but one is healthy and one is not, one has more fat and one does not, so therefore I do not believe a calorie is a calorie! JMO!0
-
i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?
Weasel words: nutritious, nourished
Those words have no real meaning. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.0 -
I would chose the first meal any day over the second. I am sorry but I do not believe a calorie is a calorie. I believe yes it might be a calorie but one is healthy and one is not, one has more fat and one does not, so therefore I do not believe a calorie is a calorie! JMO!
You really think that extra 2 grams of fat will somehow be less healthy...?0 -
i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?
Weasel words: nutritious, nourished
Those words have no real meaning. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.
aw come on man, we can disagree without the name calling right?0 -
Meal 1 is out, too many omega 6's.i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?
Weasel words: nutritious, nourished
Those words have no real meaning. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health. 0 -
i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?
Weasel words: nutritious, nourished
Those words have no real meaning. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.
aw come on man, we can disagree without the name calling right?
I didn't call anyone any names. "Weasel words" is a valid way to describe your use of the words nutritious and nutrition here:
"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) may be an informal term[1] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated."
I'm criticizing your words, not you.
Now, again. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.0 -
Meal 1 is out, too many omega 6's.i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?
Weasel words: nutritious, nourished
Those words have no real meaning. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.
........ salmon....... is all i have to say to that......0 -
i said making things like the burrito a habit and eating more foods that are less nutritious over time will cause decline in all areas of fitness/health.
You can say that, but you haven't provided any sort of evidence for the claim. It's more of a religious belief than anything else.
you don't think that eating less nutritious foods more often makes someone less nourished than someone who eats highly nutritious food more often?
reeeally?
Weasel words: nutritious, nourished
Those words have no real meaning. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.
aw come on man, we can disagree without the name calling right?
I didn't call anyone any names. "Weasel words" is a valid way to describe your use of the words nutritious and nutrition here:
"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) may be an informal term[1] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated."
I'm criticizing your words, not you.
Now, again. Tell us specifically what nutrients you're talking about, and then tell us how more or less of those nutrients will lead to specific declines in fitness and health.
i'm not a nutritionist and don't have that information off the top of my head - also, i don't have an ingredient list or nutrition facts for both meals... so it's kind of difficult to compare. get me the info and i'll tell you what i think about it as specifically as i can.
however, if you're consistently not meeting micronutrient levels (of the non-fortified variety) you may run into issues. it's tough to be specific unless we know what vitamins/minerals/etc are involved.0 -
i'm not a nutritionist and don't have that information off the top of my head - also, i don't have an ingredient list or nutrition facts for both meals... so it's kind of difficult to compare. get me the info and i'll tell you what i think about it as specifically as i can.
Great. I look forward to it.0 -
I would chose the first meal any day over the second. I am sorry but I do not believe a calorie is a calorie. I believe yes it might be a calorie but one is healthy and one is not, one has more fat and one does not, so therefore I do not believe a calorie is a calorie! JMO!
You really think that extra 2 grams of fat will somehow be less healthy...?
Not just that, everything in the whole! Not getting into a discussion with you stating my opinion and moving on!0 -
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.
It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.
You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.
And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.
Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old
Genetics. It isn't diet. Tons of gifted athletes eat like kids whose parents are on vacation.0 -
You are right but this man may eat this once a year...we dont know the whole story. He probably eats well when he is training but has less healthy meals at times..he is human.Could he be the exception that proves the rule?
I have never heard a BB or PT or Athlete recommend this0
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
- 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