Nutrition is SIMPLE. Agree or No?

Options
2»

Replies

  • MichaelBrewer2634
    MichaelBrewer2634 Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    All you need to know is that simple sugars are poison, and... You really shouldn't eat poison. Fin
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,771 Member
    Options
    It really is simple. People jump through all these hoops to overcomplicate it because they refuse to believe it can be that simple.

    Yup. It's one of the reasons I've never understood Weight Watchers. Why take an extremely simple concept and attempt to oversimplify it and make it more confusing? And then people pay for this luxury? How much simpler do you need than "calories in < calories out"
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    All you need to know is that simple sugars are poison, and... You really shouldn't eat poison. Fin


    Surely, you're not suggesting anyone not eat fruit, right?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    I agree that nutrition is simple, but I dont' think it is as simple as the 2 rules in the OP. Just saying "eat your vegetables" is too simplified.

    A diet of nothing but broccoli, carrots and cookies is unlikely to be healthy even if you are within your calories.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    yes its simple but the billion dollar diet industry screws with people's minds. low fat, no fat, low carb, meatless, gluten free, dairy free BLAH BLAH BLAH i can see how it can seem not so simple if you fall for all the hype.

    Except that Gluten and Dairy allergies actually exist and if you have ever lived with someone who has suffered from either of these issues you would realize that BLAH BLAH BLAH is not appropriate for them.

    Can we please exclude people with specific conditions? There's nothing more tiresome than trying to have a conversation or debate and someone brings up the 2% of the population that it OBVIOUSLY doesn't apply to. Has doing that ever made any conversation better?
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    Options
    It really is simple. People jump through all these hoops to overcomplicate it because they refuse to believe it can be that simple.

    Yup. It's one of the reasons I've never understood Weight Watchers. Why take an extremely simple concept and attempt to oversimplify it and make it more confusing? And then people pay for this luxury? How much simpler do you need than "calories in < calories out"

    Weight Watchers doesn't complicate things and for some people counting points is easier than calories plus you get face to face support which for some is very helpful.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    All you need to know is that some people wear tin foil hats. You really shouldn't listen to people wearing tin foil hats. Fin.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It really is simple. People jump through all these hoops to overcomplicate it because they refuse to believe it can be that simple.

    Yup. It's one of the reasons I've never understood Weight Watchers. Why take an extremely simple concept and attempt to oversimplify it and make it more confusing? And then people pay for this luxury? How much simpler do you need than "calories in < calories out"

    Calories in < calories out is a recipe for weight loss. It does not guarantee proper nutrition.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It really is simple. People jump through all these hoops to overcomplicate it because they refuse to believe it can be that simple.

    Yup. It's one of the reasons I've never understood Weight Watchers. Why take an extremely simple concept and attempt to oversimplify it and make it more confusing? And then people pay for this luxury? How much simpler do you need than "calories in < calories out"

    Weight Watchers doesn't complicate things and for some people counting points is easier than calories plus you get face to face support which for some is very helpful.

    This is apparently important for many people. Weight loss programs that include support groups have been shown to have a better long term success rate.
  • Beastette
    Beastette Posts: 1,497 Member
    Options
    You just need the four main food groups: candy, candy canes, candy corns, and syrup.
  • angiechimpanzee
    angiechimpanzee Posts: 536 Member
    Options
    It really is simple. People jump through all these hoops to overcomplicate it because they refuse to believe it can be that simple.

    Yup. It's one of the reasons I've never understood Weight Watchers. Why take an extremely simple concept and attempt to oversimplify it and make it more confusing? And then people pay for this luxury? How much simpler do you need than "calories in < calories out"

    Calories in < calories out is a recipe for weight loss. It does not guarantee proper nutrition.
    This. Also, it's unrealistic to expect the average person to count calories for the rest of their lives. I think it's important to learn nutritional principles that aren't based on calorie counts.
  • capnrus789
    capnrus789 Posts: 2,736 Member
    Options
    It really is simple. People jump through all these hoops to overcomplicate it because they refuse to believe it can be that simple.

    Yup. It's one of the reasons I've never understood Weight Watchers. Why take an extremely simple concept and attempt to oversimplify it and make it more confusing? And then people pay for this luxury? How much simpler do you need than "calories in < calories out"

    There you go bring math into it. 3rd grade math is hard. You've got like a 40-40 chance of getting it right!
  • MrsC160
    MrsC160 Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    You just need the four main food groups: candy, candy canes, candy corns, and syrup.

    :heart:

    +5 for the amazing Elf quote
  • BarbellApprentice
    BarbellApprentice Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    Some peeps have made the distinction that "NUTRITION" is not so simple. This is getting down to semantics, but I would agree. Obviously, there is an entire scientific community devoted to nutrition, so it can't be boiled down to a tag line. However, in our day to day lives, I think getting proper nutrition, losing fat, etc, is not rocket science.
  • BarbellApprentice
    BarbellApprentice Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    A year ago I would have agreed. But knowing what I know now, I have to say that I feel LOST. I realize now that I've been under-eating significantly for quite some time based on my activity levels. I thought I had done the math and was doing everything right. I now find myself "skinny fat" and lost in terms of how to shed body fat. The more people I talk to the more they make it sound like it is some exact science that you have to figure out; intake + macro's + type of workout, etc. What I used to think came down to garbage in, garbage out now looks like rocket science.

    I hear you, MyBodyMyMachine. In days gone by, I have gotten lost in all the information as well. Stay the course. Keep tweaking things. And log your food religiously.
  • spdleeuw
    spdleeuw Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Nutrition is not so simple when no-one seems to be able to agree. Here are 2 quotes from the livestrong website:
    "Neither grapes, lemon nor lime contain protein, says the FDA".

    but from another page from the very same website
    "A 1-cup serving of grapefruit sections supplies 1.45 g, and one small peeled lime provides 0.47 g of protein. The best citrus fruit source of protein is the lemon. A 1 cup serving of lemon sections supplies 2.33 g of protein."

    In the last fifteen years we have been told that there is no better breakfast than a boiled egg every day, then never to eat more than two eggs a week because of the danger of cholesterol, and now it appears that eggs are OK after all as eating cholesterol-rich foods doesn't necessarily have an influence on our own.

    I don't believe a word anyone tells me any more, 63 years old and getting as stubborn as a mule...!
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    Nutrition is not so simple when no-one seems to be able to agree. Here are 2 quotes from the livestrong website:
    "Neither grapes, lemon nor lime contain protein, says the FDA".

    but from another page from the very same website
    "A 1-cup serving of grapefruit sections supplies 1.45 g, and one small peeled lime provides 0.47 g of protein. The best citrus fruit source of protein is the lemon. A 1 cup serving of lemon sections supplies 2.33 g of protein."
    They were going by this chart:

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/InformationforRestaurantsRetailEstablishments/UCM169225.pdf

    So 1 lemon or lime would have less than 1/2 a gram of protein so it would be rounded down to zero on this FDA chart.
    It's stupid to have a chart and then round stuff that actually exists to zero.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    Some peeps have made the distinction that "NUTRITION" is not so simple. This is getting down to semantics, but I would agree. Obviously, there is an entire scientific community devoted to nutrition, so it can't be boiled down to a tag line. However, in our day to day lives, I think getting proper nutrition, losing fat, etc, is not rocket science.

    Well while it's true things are often overly complicated, the reality is that just counting calories alone often doesn't work for people. If CICO was so simple and easy, where did this obesity epidemic come from?

    If you rely completley on just counting calories instead of changing the way you eat and exercising, you're setting yourself up for long term failure. Eventually motivation will wane and you'll count the calories less and less, and the pounds will come back on. Except this time you'll be worse off then you were before b/c the weight you lost will be partially LBM while the weight you put back on will be all fat.

Categories