We trashed the sodas, chips, cookies

What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.

If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?

"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.

You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.

Headed to get a Dt. soda now!! and maybe some cookies I can factor them in and work them out later at the gym! Its about moderation not depravation!
But that said, if this is working for you... let the depravation continue

What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.

If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?

"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.

You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.

It's 99% about macros. Modern foods are so fortified and nutritious you have to try really, really hard to actually achieve any sort of genuine nutrient deficiency.

What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.

If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?

"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.

The human body needs a variety of nutrients to thrive and survive. If you live on sugar alone, you're going to end up malnourished.

The term 'empty' calories is for a food that gives the body nothing else but energy.

This would be an interesting case study if they took all sorts of measurements (bf, wt, metabolic markers etc) prior to them going on a hunger strike. What's currently going on seems to be at odds with some common wisdom among these parts.

1) They are clearly consuming less than their BMR and half of the magical 1200 cals, yet they appear to still be losing weight (2 prisoners have lost at least 15% of their bodyweight in under 2 months. Do the 1200 cal/VLCD zealots believe they would be losing more if they were eating more?

2) The cals they are consuming are entirely from gatorade, the cals from gatorade all come from evil refined sugar, isn't that supposed to stop weight loss in it's track or cause all sorts of other evils? 54 days of just sugar and not the "good" fruit sugar either, if sugar was toxic you'd think some serious issues would have arisen

None of this of course is saying they are aren't doing some sort of damage to themselves but for the fear mongering that goes on about low cal diets and sugar around here, you'd expect these folks to be dead

With an inmate hunger strike over conditions at California’s highest security lockups now at day 54, it seems remarkable that none of the 41 prisoners refusing food since July 8 has experienced serious or life-threatening medical problems.

Officials monitoring the protest report that, as of Wednesday, the men had body mass indexes in the 20s, well above a danger zone established by the court-appointed receiver overseeing prison medical care. Only two of the prisoners had lost more than 15 percent of their body weight, another critical measure.

While the inmates are clearly suffering as a result of the extended fast, and report bouts of extreme nausea and dizziness, there are “no imminent health emergencies and no prisoners in critical condition,” said Joyce Hayhoe, a spokesperson for receiver Clark Kelso.

So what’s keeping the hunger strikers from more severe starvation? The answer, it turns out, could be mass quantities of Gatorade, the ubiquitous sports drink.

Under state rules, inmates are considered on hunger strike if they refuse all state meals for more than three days and have no other food items in their cells, such as snacks from the prison commissary.

However, Hayhoe said each day the hunger strikers are receiving five powder packets of Gatorade that deliver a total of 600-625 calories. That’s in addition to supplies of vitamins.

Hayhoe said the electrolytes in Gatorade are not considered “nutrition,” which would otherwise cancel inmates’ participation in a hunger strike.

“The amount of calories and the type of calories (from Gatorade) will not keep them from getting malnourished and could lead to heart, liver and muscle damage,” she said. “But it helps sustain them longer.”

The aim of providing electrolytes is to prevent severe dehydration, Hayhoe said.

Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”

Garber further notes that body mass index is a blunt measure and must be looked at individually. “We see patients starved and at high risk and they still have normal BMIs,” Garber noted. So hunger striking prisoners with BMIs in the 20s may not indicate much about their medical condition.

The fact that two of the prisoners have lost 15 percent of their body weight is a more accurate measure, she says, because it takes into account their starting point. Garber said a loss of 15 percent of body weight is a criteria for hospital admission in adolescents she treats.

As of Thursday, none of the strikers had been moved to an outside hospital, according to Hayhoe.

On August 19, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson issued an order allowing force-feeding (or involuntary re-feeding) of any inmate near death. While the order prompted angry responses from prisoner advocacy groups, officials said such measures are not needed, at least for now.

In fact, visitors who spoke with strike leaders this week reported the men were chipper and energetic, thanks in part to the daily supply of Gatorade.

Anne Weills, an Oakland attorney representing several of the strikers in a federal lawsuit over conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, said the prisoners were “vibrant and intellectually sharp” when she met with them on Wednesday.

“They are fiercely committed to this struggle,” she said. “They still want to negotiate with the state.”

However, corrections officials have refused to negotiate with the hunger strikers and this week released a document claiming to have addressed (thought not agreed to) all their key demands.

Officials maintain the current protest is the work of violent gang leaders seeking to reassert control over criminal networks in prison system and on the streets.

Hayhoe said that while several inmates are under medical observation, the biggest concern right now is a sudden heart attack.

http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/08/30/prison-hunger-strikers-getting-by-on-gatorade-vitamins/

What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.

If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?

"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.

You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.

What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.

If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?

"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.

You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.

It's 99% about macros. Modern foods are so fortified and nutritious you have to try really, really hard to actually achieve any sort of genuine nutrient deficiency.

Fortified yes. I still prefer to get my nutrients the old fashioned way. :flowerforyou:

That's fine. But people harp way too much on micronutrients. Yes, pay attention to them. Make sure you get enough. Take a multivitamin. Get blood work done every year or two by your doc. Eat fruits and veggies. Etc etc. But pretending that eating some Pop Tarts and ice cream mean you're going to be somehow nutrient-deficient is crazy.

What is this "empty" calorie food people are talking about? Be definition that cannot be. Carb is a nutrient, 4 calories per gram. Protein the same. Fat in at 9 / gram.

If the food has calories it has nutrition, period. What is the problem here? Why is this so hard to accept? If a pop tart has 200 calories, that's 200 calories of nutrition. Unless those 200 calories come from some magical source of energy? Unicorn horn, the magical 5th macro?

"But the sugar!" Sugar is a carb, hence a nutriant.

You still need to look at that bigger picture. It isn't all about macros. There are micronutrients as well that are just as important to make sure you are getting enough. If you are getting mass amounts of pure sugar then how are you going to get all of those oh so important vitamins and minerals? Taking them in pill form aren't going to do anything even close to what getting them from real food sources would. Sugar doesn't nourish your body either. Vitamin C, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium... Those do. Not to mention some of those "foods" can actually inhibit the absorption of these vitamins and minerals in your body.

It's 99% about macros. Modern foods are so fortified and nutritious you have to try really, really hard to actually achieve any sort of genuine nutrient deficiency.

Fortified yes. I still prefer to get my nutrients the old fashioned way. :flowerforyou:

That's fine. But people harp way too much on micronutrients. Yes, pay attention to them. Make sure you get enough. Take a multivitamin. Get blood work done every year or two by your doc. Eat fruits and veggies. Etc etc. But pretending that eating some Pop Tarts and ice cream mean you're going to be somehow nutrient-deficient is crazy.

BTW, are you the user formerly known as various iterations of "mulberry"?

my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards. We did a cleanse,. We have been lurking around the message board for a couple of months but just joined.

We want to thank all those who posted with how important it is to look at what we were putting in our bodies.

We have a certified nutritionist for our meals, worth the money and a fitness trainer. We also see the doctor regularly. The three of them advised it would be good for us to rid ourselves of the junk foo and sodas.
We do have our own diet plan that we write down daily.

My buddy is down 12 pounds in two months , I am reduced by 14 .

We are going strong.

I think people harp way too much on macronutrients. They project the view that macros are all that matter, even when they know it's not true. They defend their junk food vehemently, even though they know that most of their diet is not junk. They seem to want us to believe we can't be happy or maintain a healthy weight without drinking soda or eating Pop Tarts. It's all so friggin' ridiculous. Junk food is just junk food. It's not necessary.

This study showing that “reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

This study which found “diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.”- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101

Results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html (links within)

Flexible dieting greater success rate
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707550

I think people harp way too much on macronutrients. They project the view that macros are all that matter, even when they know it's not true. They defend their junk food vehemently, even though they know that most of their diet is not junk. They seem to want us to believe we can't be happy or maintain a healthy weight without drinking soda or eating Pop Tarts. It's all so friggin' ridiculous. Junk food is just junk food. It's not necessary.

This study showing that “reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

This study which found “diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.”- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101

Results of Professor Mark Haub who lost 27lbs and improved markers of health while eating a diet consisting of Twinkies.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html (links within)

Flexible dieting greater success rate
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707550

What is your point?