Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Replies
-
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
still an appeal to authority
Not a fallacy if the person is an actual authority in the subject you're referring to.
Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority,[2] when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
this is the crux of your argument? keep going. you're doing well.
Um, yes, when it comes to whether it's dietitian or dietician.
There's a "Today's Dietitian" magazine. There is no "Today's Dietician." If you look at university dietetics programs, they all say "dietitian." The professional certification is "Registered Dietitian."
Do you have some opinion on dietitian versus dietician or are you just trolling for off-topic BS responses?0 -
No, I absolutely do not, and in your zealous hatred of me you completely misunderstand everything I post and advocate.
I advocate a diet where the person sets appropriate macronutrient goals to achieve their desired results. How they get there really does not matter. I strongly encourage people to eat vegetables. I also encourage them to eat the foods they love, whatever those are, in ways that allow them to hit their macronutrient goals.
I also encourage people to eat fast food if they want. Fast food is not automatically junk. Grilled chicken sandwiches, tacos, broiled fish and shrimp, ice cream, and hamburgers are not junk food if they fit into your macronutrient profile, full stop. For some reason you think a grilled chicken sandwich from McD's is "junk food" but a grilled chicken sandwich you make at home is not, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You have decided to hate me and everything you understand or interpret about what I say is completely, 100% irrational.
I agree with you that people can make decent choices while eating out/fast food, however, some big differences between the "grilled" chicken sandwich at McDonald's and the one at home are things like: trans fat vs saturated fat, hormones & antibiotics in the chicken, and MSG. All of which may elicit hormone response and/or inflammation. So, while your macros may be the same, the effect could be drastically different.
The grilled chicken fillet at McD's has 0g saturated fat, 0g trans fat, and no MSG. I see no reason to believe that there are hormones and antibiotics in the sandwich.
The piece of grilled chicken I cooked a few days ago has the exact same saturated fat, trans fat, MSG, and hormone/antibiotic content.
So........ what were you saying, exactly?
lolwut? how did you come to THAT decision?
Because it is true. Hormones aren't used in chicken legally. Antibiotics must be allowed to "withdraw" prior to slaughter. McD does their own testing, if FSIS finds slaughtered test birds with either in a poultry farm.... Deep dooodooo.
That's interesting. I did not know that. I assumed that it did have hormones in there.0 -
LUSTIG11:30:52
We have kept this at an academic and scientific level and I continue to want to do so, and no problem there. So let's discuss the science of it. John, you're absolutely that in doses that make sense, that fructose does not do these issues. The problem is, in the hypercaloric state, as your data also shows...
SIEVENPIPER11:31:16
Yes.
LUSTIG11:31:17
...it clearly does do this. The problem is, we're all hypercaloric. So that's, you know, the first issue. The second issue is fructose for glucose exchange studies, what you mentioned have inherent problems as well for the reasons we have discussed, that is that there is no fructose for glucose in nature, there's only fructose and glucose. And we know from the work of Marc Hellerstein and Lisa Hudgins that when you put fructose and glucose together, you get more liver fat than when you do fructose instead of glucose because the glucose takes up the glycolytic pathway, the fructose goes to the lipogenic pathway.
LUSTIG11:31:54
Lastly, when you mentioned the question about population studies, we have now just finished a study and you've seen the data, which shows that sugar in a global sense, we're talking about across countries over the last decade, with all the appropriate confounders controlled for, including BMI, including obesity, aging, urbanization, physical inactivity and economics, sugar is 11 times more potent than total calories in explaining diabetes rate around the world.
REHM11:32:33
Interesting. Dr. Sievenpiper?
SIEVENPIPER11:32:36
Yes. No, I mean, to his point, he's quite right in terms the limitations of the designs. But in those studies, it is -- those are consumed in a background of high carbohydrate foods, so it is present with glucose. What I would say, though, is what's interesting about this is if you look at this -- you look at the intakes of sugar, it's going up. Professor Lustig did discuss this and how that relates to diabetes and overweight and obesity and metabolic syndrome.
SIEVENPIPER11:32:58
And he's indicating what he's found with his new data is that we actually have a bit of a paradox, though, where in the last 10 years in the United States, for example, sugars have decreased to which the majority of the decrease coming from reduction in sugar-sweetened beverages. About 60 percent of that decrease.
LUSTIG11:33:11
Mm-hmm. That's true.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:12
Well, people continue to consume a high level of energy and continue to become overweight and obese and we continue to have an issue of overweight and obesity increasing, diabetes increasing, metabolic syndrome increasing. We have seen some small decreases in overweight and obese particularly in adolescents. But in general, those numbers are still going up, despite sugars coming down.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:28
And we have the same paradox in Canada. We have the same paradox in the United Kingdom and Australia.
REHM11:33:31
That's interesting.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:32
So, on a population level, I think, you know, Professor Lustig said this and I don't want to -- I don't think that Professor Lustig thinks of this as the sole cause. I know he said it's not. And I think that's what I want to underline is that there are many pathways to overweight and obesity and metabolic syndrome and all the cardio-metabolic problems that come with this, including dietary patterns where you consume too much energy, you consume too much processed meat, too much refined carbohydrate.
SIEVENPIPER11:33:57
And sugary beverages and sugars are just one aspect of that. So they're culpable as culpable as any other form of excess energy. And I think the issue needs to be about excess energy or excess calories, if you like, in general. It's about overconsumption in this sort of culture we have of overconsumption, which I think is the issue and lack of exercise.
Lol who is in a hypercaloric state?
im not
so it is bound to the state of calories you are in
everything is bad for you if you are in a sustained hypercaloric state bottom line.
lack of exercise, hypercaloric state is the big problem for everything is a problem for sugar control
everything that alan was talking about before being hypercaloric
geez Alan must a been pretty dumb. he was already talking about this information before the information was published and lustig admitted to it being hypercaloric
so lustig's belief is. since we are going to get fat anyway, avoid fructose.0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.
Well you should let all the Registered Dietitians who went through university programs that advertised their Dietitian programs, who get Today's Dietitian magazine, and work in hospitals and clinics with job titles called Dietitians that they're wrong.
Yes, dietician has been used in the past. I am telling you, however, that this is considered a misspelling by actual trained, certified dietitians as well as the organizations they belong to and the companies that employ them.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.
Well you should let all the Registered Dietitians who went through university programs that advertised their Dietitian programs, who get Today's Dietitian magazine, and work in hospitals and clinics with job titles called Dietitians that they're wrong.
Yes, dietician has been used in the past. I am telling you, however, that this is considered a misspelling by actual trained, certified dietitians as well as the organizations they belong to and the companies that employ them.
who the **** cares?0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
:drinker:0 -
i havnt read the posts on this page... but put simply no it doesn at alll for weight loss.
now sayin that.. do get your fibre intake.. for obvious reasons.. and more serious ones.
try eat atleastttt 2+ portions of fruit and veg each.. (take a multi-vitamin jus incase.. y not)
but yer.. if you disagree please tell me for instance how your body knows the difference from where a carbohydrate came from.. from rice or a doughnut.
also you dont need to eat spaced out meals lol.. if you disagree please tell me how you can change your BASAL metabolism.0 -
in my first ever diet(this one) its just been a case of eating whatever i want ,but strictly being under the calorie limit,i have excluded nothing .
nothing in my diet has changed but the amounts
and ive managed to lose 60 lb in 6 month-im happy with this
i have recently noticed getting hungrier more so have simply substituted milk in coffee and cereal for none ,but my thinking is (i drink masses of coffee) but at what was 30 cal per cup soon adding up to 300+ cal per day to the same amount of coffee with no milk now buys me more soup extra slice of bacon's-or a "treat" .
i don't care for the intricacies of why and how all i know is its working for me and i am happier dieting than my Mrs(who does the whole cous cous,mung bean hummus "good" food malarkey and thus far i believe im the more successful .0 -
I eat what i want as long as it fits. Reason why is i know im not going to go the rest of my life not eating stuff i love:) Its just i make better choices for the most part and still slip in the stuff i like..0
-
i havnt read the posts on this page... but put simply no it doesn at alll for weight loss.
now sayin that.. do get your fibre intake.. for obvious reasons.. and more serious ones.
try eat atleastttt 2+ portions of fruit and veg each.. (take a multi-vitamin jus incase.. y not)
but yer.. if you disagree please tell me for instance how your body knows the difference from where a carbohydrate came from.. from rice or a doughnut.
also you dont need to eat spaced out meals lol.. if you disagree please tell me how you can change your BASAL metabolism.
you need that fiber or pepper your angus0 -
also in terms of weight loss... u could eat purely doughnuts... if you hit your maintenance calories or your deficit.. theres no way to put on weight without the surplus of energy,,, your not going to get the extra calories from thin air.
empty calories does mean you can get hungrier quicker.. but hunger changes with eating habits.. and hunger has nothing to do with metabolism0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
:drinker:
Nice argument. Too bad it's all made up
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html0 -
I eat what i want as long as it fits. Reason why is i know im not going to go the rest of my life not eating stuff i love:) Its just i make better choices for the most part and still slip in the stuff i like..
This is a reasonable approach. What is unreasonable is scaring people away from the foods they love on the basis that it will have some horrible effect (just not any effect that anyone has been able to establish or prove yet; but trust me it's definitely bad).0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.
Well you should let all the Registered Dietitians who went through university programs that advertised their Dietitian programs, who get Today's Dietitian magazine, and work in hospitals and clinics with job titles called Dietitians that they're wrong.
Yes, dietician has been used in the past. I am telling you, however, that this is considered a misspelling by actual trained, certified dietitians as well as the organizations they belong to and the companies that employ them.
Why would I do that? As I said, they wish they could correct it..but because of the common usage of both spellings - both spellings are deemed valid. That's all I was saying. I never said that dietitians were doing it wrong. O.o.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?0 -
Can't clean be junk? For example, I could make a cake with butter I turned myself, flour I ground myself...totally clean and unprocessed, but it's still unhealthy.
I would say absolutely (though I wouldn't go to that much trouble) but then others would say it couldn't be clean because you had to use sugar.
Sugarcane I crushed myself and cooked the juice off?
Ah... but it's still sucrose.
But when you make this divine confection, I will gladly fall on the sword and alleviate you of it's evil dirty-ness!
Wait, even natural sources of sucrose aren't considered clean?0 -
It's dietitian, not dietician. Dietitians are actually generally very knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition. Go figure!
Anyway, Alan Aragon is one of the most respected people in the business. And he probably reads and intelligently interprets more raw nutrition research than everyone on MFP combined. The guy seriously knows his ****.
Just pointing out real quick that dietician and dietitian are both correct. Dietician has been used since 1917.
Continue on..... (trying to catch up on all the pages)
I know a bunch of actual trained and educated dietitians. It's definitely not dietician. That's some weird combination that's like "physician of diet" that makes no sense.
Dietician is considered a misspelling.
"According to Merriam-Webster, a leading producer of dictionaries, dictionary inclusions are based on word usage. The usage of dietitian spelled with a “c” is long standing and has become more common as the use of computer spell-check systems has increased and as the body of literature referring to dietitians has increased. Spellings, of course vary by country, as common words are often spelled differently from one English speaking country to the next. As an example, the Microsoft spell-check only recognizes the variant of dietitian with a ‘c’ in the English Canada version but in the USA both forms of the word are recognized."
http://www.internationaldietetics.org/Newsletter/Vol17Issue2/Feature-Article/The-c-in-dietitians-a-long-history-and-fading-futu.aspx
Regardless of what dietitians may prefer....both spellings are valid.
Well you should let all the Registered Dietitians who went through university programs that advertised their Dietitian programs, who get Today's Dietitian magazine, and work in hospitals and clinics with job titles called Dietitians that they're wrong.
Yes, dietician has been used in the past. I am telling you, however, that this is considered a misspelling by actual trained, certified dietitians as well as the organizations they belong to and the companies that employ them.
Why would I do that? As I said, they wish they could correct it..but because of the common usage of both spellings - both spellings are deemed valid. That's all I was saying. I never said that dietitians were doing it wrong. O.o.
You know, when a dietitian corrected me when I spelled it dietician, and then explained the difference, I said "oh, wow, that's fascianting! Thanks! I'll be sure to use the correct term in the future."
Oh well. Forget it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions