We trashed the sodas, chips, cookies

Tonight, I'm baking mini carrot cakes with cream cheese frosting.

And there it is - cakes made from vegetables.

*happy ending music*

OK. So I am CLEARLY late to this party, but wanted to give you kudos for removing what are apparently trigger foods for you and your buddy. Keep going strong!

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.

I don't see how eating a pop tart, which typically has 13-16g of sugars, translates into "getting mass amounts of pure sugar". That's just asinine.

Yes I was exaggerating but a 200 calorie pop tart is not 200 calories of nutrition plain and simple. You are displacing real nutrients with those calories which is why they are "empty" calories. Sugar is not an essential nutrient. If someone is drinking sodas and eating pop tarts regularly then yes that is what I would consider mass amounts of sugar that is completely unnecessary and does nobody any good in reaching any real health goals, whether it is for internal health and well being or for trying to drop weight in a healthy way. And a lot of people actually do consume these things regularly and it really can lead to legitimate nutrient deficiencies regardless of how fortified their cereal and bread may be.

Seriously, what is "empty" about this?

There is no guarantee that the additions to these foods are actually well absorbed. How often are we told to take vitamins, then wait they really don't do much good try it in this new form from a different source, etc etc. Our bodies absorb these things much more readily from natural sources in balance with other specific nutrients. Pretty sure you and I have very different ideas on these concepts though so I doubt either of us can convince each other otherwise. If you want to eat a pop tart go for it. Just don't think you should be trying to convince anyone it's a good thing to include in your diet and think it's a good breakfast choice to get you going for the day. Again, how I feel. Personally, I think they're super gross... Toaster streudels were way better. And I can't eat either of them anyway so it makes no difference to me... Hah!

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.

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.

I can get behind this.

Seriously, what is "empty" about this?

It really ends up becoming a semantic debate. People view the 50g of white bread and the calories it imparts (200kcal) and then look at the nutritional information.

Then they look at, say, an isocaloric amount of, as a for instance, spinach, beef, and rice. Calorie for calorie, the second meal has more fat, more fiber, more protein, and higher levels of some of the micronutrients (likely less in some others as well, so we can even call it a wash). Then they look at the fact that the second meal is larger (I calculated on 50g of each) which will likely lead to higher satiety.

They conclude that, relative to the first meal, the second meal is better for them - and that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

There's nothing I can disagree with there. I just don't see how one can then label the first meal as "empty".

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"?

Supplements have been shown to be poorly absorbed. I suspect we'll find that the nutrients in the "fortified" foods are poorly absorbed as well.

Of course eating a pop tarts wont make you nutrient deficient if you are otherwise eating a balanced diet. I'm not sure most people who read "eat the pop tarts" *are* eating nutritious foods. But no. No foods are "evil". A few ingredients are pretty craptastic, with no redeeming qualities, but no. No foods are bad. IN MODERATION. Most folks with weight to lose have not done well with some form of moderation or another, resulting in excess calories, thus the excess weight. "In moderation" is easier said than done. Now we eat 50 pringles. After we reach goal it's 70. Then soon we're back to eating the tube. Moderation is tough. Especially when it's yummy, salty, sweet and oily.

As for the other question, no. I have been here for several years (thus the post count), with only one name. This one.

These claims are a far cry from Mulberry. I think you are concerned with "crowding out" nutrition and I understand someone looking at IIFYM and having that concern, but there is room in this approach to avoid that problem. The point is to only allow 10%-20% of one's diet to be "free" or "treats" and unless someone is on a rather low calorie diet, there is plenty of room there to get sufficient protein, good fats, micronutrients, and fiber. The trick is really learning how to balance one's diet in this way, but for many people there is a mental hurdle to doing so. I get that.

This. Exactly.
And who is Mulberry and do I need to care? :flowerforyou:

There are some who believe that things like sugar are truly evil. That the consumption of sugar will inevitably lead to very negative health outcomes no matter how the rest of one's diet is designed. That's a very extreme view held by a handful of people, and that person is one of them. I think some come to that conclusion because they themselves lack the self control necessary to moderate intake. For some people, it's sugar, but that doesn't make sugar evil, particularly when one backs off and notices that energy is provide to cells by . . . . glucose. But enough of that.

The point here, is that a variety of foods are regularly demonized and that there is no need to view food in this manner. If one balances one's meals carefully, then it becomes possible to enjoy literally any food out there, so long as it is done in moderation and in a way that fits the necessary nutrition goals. So enjoy the Pop Tart or the Ice Cream (and see what nutrition they do provide) but don't try to live off them alone. Of course, it would be silly to try to live off ANY one food. Things like the Twinkie diet worked for weight loss and that is a very important thing to note (sugar doesn't make you fat, too much sugar does), but it doesn't work so well for overall nutrition. Of course, Steve Jobs' only fruit diet didn't work so well for him either. Balance, moderation, hard work, and the right mindset will work. That's a simple formula but for many people it is very hard to get there.

It's that middle path that is being fought over, and missed here and so often, on many levels.

They're important, but not nearly as important. It's very easy to consume the wrong macronutrients. Just look at how many overweight people there are: they're overweight because they consume improper amounts of macronutrients.

We don't have "micronutrient deficiency" rates of 30% or more. We do have obesity rates of 30% or more. Obesity comes from improper macronutrient intake.

If you want to pretend macronutrients don't matter that much, you're totally wrong. Obesity is literally caused by improper macronutrient intake.

For what it's worth, we've been preaching moderation as a response to the obesity epidemic for 50 years, and it's only getting worse.

Who is preaching moderation? I don't see it. I see "don't eat junk food," "try the xyz cleanse," "the Oprah diet," "HCG pills," "Raspberry Ketones," "toxins," "eat clean," "white rice/bananas/sugar/fat/you name it will make you fat," etc.

What isn't being taught, or at least not taught well out of the current nutrition programs in schools, is moderation. Moderation is work. It's simple but it SAS isn't easy for a lot of people, and many of them end up blaming this food or that when they fail.

There's nothing I can disagree with there. I just don't see how one can then label the first meal as "empty".

I think part of it is semantics, like I mentioned -- they're saying "empty", but they likely mean "poor, relative to" or "empty, in relation to" -- they've heard the term "empty calories" for so long that it's the first that comes to mind. If they've lost some weight, they likely changed from a diet where they were eating tons of pop tarts (or...whatever) and are eating meals that look a lot more like the second one I described, and they've been successful that way. So the reflexive inclination is to link "removing pop tarts" and "losing weight" -- which is not completely wrong, but also not the whole picture.

Incidentally, that's the issue I primarily have with the "eat pop tarts and ice cream" posts -- it's basically a meme at this point. For all of the "we need to make it clear to people that you don't need to deprive yourself" language I've read in this thread, there's precious little about the other things they eat. Just an ardent defense of pop tarts and ice cream. The quick response to the "all pop tarts and ice cream" accusations are, "well, we never said that you should only eat that!" Which is true, but ignores the fact that you didn't say much else of what you ate, either -- if that makes sense (and I'm speaking generically). If you think your way is a good way, and want others to know about it, it makes sense to be open, helpful, and explanatory, and not one-liner "pop tarts and ice cream GIF" posts.

I eat HFLC ketogenic, and have for a long time. I would guess, on a random day, that my diet doesn't actually look all that much different than many of the pop tarts and ice cream folks. Just differences around the margins.

They're important, but not nearly as important. It's very easy to consume the wrong macronutrients. Just look at how many overweight people there are: they're overweight because they consume improper amounts of macronutrients.

We don't have "micronutrient deficiency" rates of 30% or more. We do have obesity rates of 30% or more. Obesity comes from improper macronutrient intake.

If you want to pretend macronutrients don't matter that much, you're totally wrong. Obesity is literally caused by improper macronutrient intake.

For what it's worth, we've been preaching moderation as a response to the obesity epidemic for 50 years, and it's only getting worse.

Hence the, albeit limited scope, attempt at education not preaching.

That's fair -- I didn't mean to imply you were preaching with this post. Sociologically, it's an interesting thing to observe the following scenario:

a. We have a whole lot of overweight people.
b. A majority of them likely want to lose weight.
c. It's not a secret how to do it, it's been preached for a long time, and they know how to do it.
d. Not only are most of (a) unsuccessful at (b), (a) is actually getting larger.

The scope of the problem is somewhat mind boggling.

There's nothing I can disagree with there. I just don't see how one can then label the first meal as "empty".

I think part of it is semantics, like I mentioned -- they're saying "empty", but they likely mean "poor, relative to" or "empty, in relation to" -- they've heard the term "empty calories" for so long that it's the first that comes to mind. If they've lost some weight, they likely changed from a diet where they were eating tons of pop tarts (or...whatever) and are eating meals that look a lot more like the second one I described, and they've been successful that way. So the reflexive inclination is to link "removing pop tarts" and "losing weight" -- which is not completely wrong, but also not the whole picture.

Incidentally, that's the issue I primarily have with the "eat pop tarts and ice cream" posts -- it's basically a meme at this point. For all of the "we need to make it clear to people that you don't need to deprive yourself" language I've read in this thread, there's precious little about the other things they eat. Just an ardent defense of pop tarts and ice cream. The quick response to the "all pop tarts and ice cream" accusations are, "well, we never said that you should only eat that!" Which is true, but ignores the fact that you didn't say much else of what you ate, either -- if that makes sense (and I'm speaking generically). If you think your way is a good way, and want others to know about it, it makes sense to be open, helpful, and explanatory, and not one-liner "pop tarts and ice cream GIF" posts.

I eat HFLC ketogenic, and have for a long time. I would guess, on a random day, that my diet doesn't actually look all that much different than many of the pop tarts and ice cream folks. Just differences around the margins.

Innit. Advocating pop tarts & ice cream... but you check their diaries out and there's nothing processed, nothing from Maccys. It's all lean meat, steamed vegetables, slow-release carbs - with ONE Diet Coke.

Check mine out.