We trashed the sodas, chips, cookies
Replies
-
If it was perfectly good food we would not have thrown it out. I didn't send it to the food bank.
We don't send ciqarettes to the food bank.
If we choose to donate we want to make sure we are keeping our principals up., now that we are becoming educated on food. I want to make sure that the food bank is getting the same good quality that we are eating. not products that we are putting in our garden waste. The only good thing is that it is biodegradable.
I know I sound excited but I am so stoked with this new energy |i have got from eating well. and the new lifestyle we have got going for ourselves.
Agree... why send chemical and sugar ridden food to the food banks??? I think you did an awesome thing. And you tested yourselves by pouring each one out!!! Good job!0 -
This. Exactly.
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.
Fortified yes. I still prefer to get my nutrients the old fashioned way. :flowerforyou: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.
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"?
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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Our governmental dietary guidelines? The idea of balance and moderation is pretty much hand in hand with the food pyramid, or plate or whatever they have now. Caloric deficit should not be a new concept to anyone in America -- just go into Planet Fitness or any other chain gym. They're not making their money on the hardcore weightlifters. They're making it on the people trying to lose weight, doing it the way they've been told to do it.
I look at the cleanse, junk food, Oprah, HCG, etc., recommendations as reactions to the frustration of it not working. To be clear -- I'm not saying that calorie deficits don't work, I'm saying that somewhere there's a disconnect between telling people what they need to do, and them being able to accomplish it. I'm not sure, like others, that I'm willing to just put it down to will power.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Agree. I ate an entire pint of organic mint chocolate chip ice cream by myself on a friday night after eating really well for days. It works for me and makes me happy and keeps me pretty content. I am not an ice cream hater or hater of indulging. Granted I have fairly high caloric requirements... But I am not against eating that sort of thing. I am just super choosy and like to make it worth my while. Call me a food snob. But yeah, I think it is important to do more than tell someone they are an idiot and will fail because they are choosing a certain route you disagree with and not give any real help or support.0 -
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.
Our governmental dietary guidelines? The idea of balance and moderation is pretty much hand in hand with the food pyramid, or plate or whatever they have now. Caloric deficit should not be a new concept to anyone in America -- just go into Planet Fitness or any other chain gym. They're not making their money on the hardcore weightlifters. They're making it on the people trying to lose weight, doing it the way they've been told to do it.
I look at the cleanse, junk food, Oprah, HCG, etc., recommendations as reactions to the frustration of it not working. To be clear -- I'm not saying that calorie deficits don't work, I'm saying that somewhere there's a disconnect between telling people what they need to do, and them being able to accomplish it. I'm not sure, like others, that I'm willing to just put it down to will power.
What I see here is a whisper of moderation put out by the U.S. Government and others, and serious health focused people on websites such as this, versus a cacophony of misinformation and "magic" solutions to weight loss. Remember that not so long ago we were being told by many that a low fat diet was the way to go, and even now there are plenty of voices that are identifying fast food and sugar as the boogymen. There are no boogymen and there is no magical solution. They don't exist.
The western world is now incredibly rich by any historical standard. Yes, a certain number of people still truly go hungry, but many more have so much food available that if they don't learn to self regulate they become very overweight. If your message of moderation to these folks is in the form of a whisper, and it is being drowned out by much louder voices telling them what they want to hear, then your message isn't getting through. How to solve that problem is a social policy question, and it is a very interesting one, but it is also a bit beyond the scope of this thread.0 -
Check mine out.
I went back four days. You didn't eat Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday. Then on Tuesday you ate.
You know this isn't sustainable, right? ;-)0 -
Check mine out.
I went back four days. You didn't eat Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday. Then on Tuesday you ate.
You know this isn't sustainable, right? ;-)
I don't log on the weekends/holidays. If you would have checked out Tues-Thurs of last week, you probably wouldn't have liked it so much.
I can't wait for home made apple crisp tonight.
It's calories in vs calories out.0 -
Personally, I don't see moderation being preached very much. Every 2nd post on Facebook is a Dr. Oz quick fix and other crappy advice on what NOT to eat to lose 30lbs in 30 days. Whenever someone asks me how I lost 120lbs and I tell them exercise and a calorie deficit they look at me like grew a second head. Then they start asking about green coffee beans and HCG in the next sentence, because that's the kind of internet success stories they're hearing about. Common sense and moderation have been buried in a sludgy garbage heap of misinformation.0
-
Check mine out.
I went back four days. You didn't eat Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday. Then on Tuesday you ate.
You know this isn't sustainable, right? ;-)
You should look at mine. I don't log the diet soda though.0 -
I see both. I see all the ketones and sugar is evil (I'll leave HFCS aside for now). I see lots of "diets are bad" posts by folks who've clearly never learned anything about the diet being discussed. And I see the whole nom nom give me my pop tarts side where very rarely does anyone mention moderation or what true moderation means. And, I've seen it in this thread as well, with the "implication" that pop tarts are nutritious. We have a generation of obese folks, who live on convenience foods, who don't, it appears, practice moderation as a life style (again, they're overweight for a reason, and I think we at least agree it's due to excess calories). We have a lot of overweight folks, who are probably malnourished (not just the now well know vitamin-D deficiencies).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.
I don't believe in demonizing foods, per se, but do think pointing out the relative nutritional "value" of a variety of approaches to meeting ones' calorie goals. Perhaps its all lost in "iffym", which, again, I think most of our newer community members don't really understand. So they see: eat the twinkie, and absorb (bad choice of words) little else from the advice offered.
ETA: How are folks at keeping the weight OFF after they've hit their weight loss goal? THIS seems to be the real issue, and "calories in/calories out" aside there is NO one size fits all best approach to doing so.
The comparisons to money budgeting are apt here. We each handle our money differently, with the same overall goals.0 -
Check mine out.
I went back four days. You didn't eat Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday. Then on Tuesday you ate.
You know this isn't sustainable, right? ;-)
I don't log on the weekends/holidays. If you would have checked out Tues-Thurs of last week, you probably wouldn't have liked it so much.
I can't wait for home made apple crisp tonight.
It's calories in vs calories out.
Hey - i have a way to make apple crisp fit my 'deprived" diet - its something like apples, cinamon, nuts crumbled, a bit of brown sugar, and maybe a little butter, and put in microwave and voila! its a delicious dessert AND not fattening AND fits my deprived meal plan
0 -
my best buddy and I detoxed our cupboards.
...
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.
...
0 -
Personally, I don't see moderation being preached very much. Every 2nd post on Facebook is a Dr. Oz quick fix and other crappy advice on what NOT to eat to lose 30lbs in 30 days. Whenever someone asks me how I lost 120lbs and I tell them exercise and a calorie deficit they look at me like grew a second head. Then they start asking about green coffee beans and HCG in the next sentence, because that's the kind of internet success stories they're hearing about. Common sense and moderation have been buried in a sludgy garbage heap of misinformation.
^ This is the reality of the message that is getting through. Any one of us only needs to look here on the message boards, on on our own Facebook pages.
And yes, something like IIFYM is a bit complicated. It isn't a one step solution. It takes counting calories, counting macros, discipline, and really "getting it." It does, however, actually work and it works long term.0 -
I see both. I see all the ketones and sugar is evil (I'll leave HFCS aside for now). I see lots of "diets are bad" posts by folks who've clearly never learned anything about the diet being discussed. And I see the whole nom nom give me my pop tarts side where very rarely does anyone mention moderation or what true moderation means. And, I've seen it in this thread as well, with the "implication" that pop tarts are nutritious. We have a generation of obese folks, who live on convenience foods, who don't, it appears, practice moderation as a life style (again, they're overweight for a reason, and I think we at least agree it's due to excess calories). We have a lot of overweight folks, who are probably malnourished (not just the now well know vitamin-D deficiencies).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.
I don't believe in demonizing foods, per se, but do think pointing out the relative nutritional "value" of a variety of approaches to meeting ones' calorie goals. Perhaps its all lost in "iffym", which, again, I think most of our newer community members don't really understand. So they see: eat the twinkie, and absorb (bad choice of words) little else from the advice offered.
there are folks that live off fast food like macdonalds, even "shudder" after weight loss surgery.. they are getting fatter and fatter. they dont know they could be eating carrots. i see people on the bus munching down on flaming cheetos, fried chicken (and they left the bones on the seat sheesh!); they have not learned anything even close to moderation much less cold turkey method. ) they dont exercise ,, they think their extra pounds is attractive and squeeze into too-tight pants, they love the food and cant or wont because even moderation is too painful. they think macdonalds is cheap and affordable. and they think fresh veg is not. those are the ones who really need help
they think that eating thier traditional cuisine (perhaps southern fried food for example) is what they are supposed to eat.. and then when someone like a daughter in the house tries to diet, the mother encourages them to eat junk food. I saw an episode of one o the weight loss shows, and this is what happened,, the mother was saying she was getting too skinny, when she really was still overweight
oh and dont get me started on the people who are 900 pounds, in the hosptial, cant move to even clean their butt, and the family sneaks in oreos, frried chicken and assorted bags of potato chips.0 -
I don't think you are giving new people very much credit. When a new person sees a diary like Jonnythan's, isn't it possible that they're thinking, "Hey, I could follow a diet like that! I could be successful for the first time ever without depriving myself and still be active and healthy. And I could do it FOREVER." I know that's what I thought. It was a revelation. :flowerforyou:
I see both. I see all the ketones and sugar is evil (I'll leave HFCS aside for now). I see lots of "diets are bad" posts by folks who've clearly never learned anything about the diet being discussed. And I see the whole nom nom give me my pop tarts side where very rarely does anyone mention moderation or what true moderation means. And, I've seen it in this thread as well, with the "implication" that pop tarts are nutritious. We have a generation of obese folks, who live on convenience foods, who don't, it appears, practice moderation as a life style (again, they're overweight for a reason, and I think we at least agree it's due to excess calories). We have a lot of overweight folks, who are probably malnourished (not just the now well know vitamin-D deficiencies).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.
I don't believe in demonizing foods, per se, but do think pointing out the relative nutritional "value" of a variety of approaches to meeting ones' calorie goals. Perhaps its all lost in "iffym", which, again, I think most of our newer community members don't really understand. So they see: eat the twinkie, and absorb (bad choice of words) little else from the advice offered.0 -
I don't think you are giving new people very much credit. When a new person sees a diary like Jonnythan's, isn't it possible that they're thinking, "Hey, I could follow a diet like that! I could be successful for the first time ever without depriving myself and still be active and healthy. And I could do it FOREVER." I know that's what I thought. It was a revelation. :flowerforyou:
I see both. I see all the ketones and sugar is evil (I'll leave HFCS aside for now). I see lots of "diets are bad" posts by folks who've clearly never learned anything about the diet being discussed. And I see the whole nom nom give me my pop tarts side where very rarely does anyone mention moderation or what true moderation means. And, I've seen it in this thread as well, with the "implication" that pop tarts are nutritious. We have a generation of obese folks, who live on convenience foods, who don't, it appears, practice moderation as a life style (again, they're overweight for a reason, and I think we at least agree it's due to excess calories). We have a lot of overweight folks, who are probably malnourished (not just the now well know vitamin-D deficiencies).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.
I don't believe in demonizing foods, per se, but do think pointing out the relative nutritional "value" of a variety of approaches to meeting ones' calorie goals. Perhaps its all lost in "iffym", which, again, I think most of our newer community members don't really understand. So they see: eat the twinkie, and absorb (bad choice of words) little else from the advice offered.
This was your 666th post. If that's not proof you and I are evil, nothing is.
ETA: Dang I misread. Only 606.0 -
Check mine out.
I went back four days. You didn't eat Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday. Then on Tuesday you ate.
You know this isn't sustainable, right? ;-)
You should look at mine. I don't log the diet soda though.
My diary wants to be your diary when it grows up.0 -
Perhaps. And when someone says they've gone "low GI", or paleo, or or or... no one thinks THEY can do that forever. Perhaps they can. Or perhaps both are learning along the way to consider food differently and later they can just mentally count calories.
I don't think you are giving new people very much credit. When a new person sees a diary like Jonnythan's, isn't it possible that they're thinking, "Hey, I could follow a diet like that! I could be successful for the first time ever without depriving myself and still be active and healthy. And I could do it FOREVER." I know that's what I thought. It was a revelation. :flowerforyou:
I see both. I see all the ketones and sugar is evil (I'll leave HFCS aside for now). I see lots of "diets are bad" posts by folks who've clearly never learned anything about the diet being discussed. And I see the whole nom nom give me my pop tarts side where very rarely does anyone mention moderation or what true moderation means. And, I've seen it in this thread as well, with the "implication" that pop tarts are nutritious. We have a generation of obese folks, who live on convenience foods, who don't, it appears, practice moderation as a life style (again, they're overweight for a reason, and I think we at least agree it's due to excess calories). We have a lot of overweight folks, who are probably malnourished (not just the now well know vitamin-D deficiencies).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.
I don't believe in demonizing foods, per se, but do think pointing out the relative nutritional "value" of a variety of approaches to meeting ones' calorie goals. Perhaps its all lost in "iffym", which, again, I think most of our newer community members don't really understand. So they see: eat the twinkie, and absorb (bad choice of words) little else from the advice offered.
Perhaps I just wish both approaches were accepted.
I edited my post to add: we're all good at the weight LOSS part... the maintenance is the tough part. (see above) Each of us needs to find a way to do that in a way that works for us.0 -
I don't think you are giving new people very much credit. When a new person sees a diary like Jonnythan's, isn't it possible that they're thinking, "Hey, I could follow a diet like that! I could be successful for the first time ever without depriving myself and still be active and healthy. And I could do it FOREVER." I know that's what I thought. It was a revelation. :flowerforyou:
I see both. I see all the ketones and sugar is evil (I'll leave HFCS aside for now). I see lots of "diets are bad" posts by folks who've clearly never learned anything about the diet being discussed. And I see the whole nom nom give me my pop tarts side where very rarely does anyone mention moderation or what true moderation means. And, I've seen it in this thread as well, with the "implication" that pop tarts are nutritious. We have a generation of obese folks, who live on convenience foods, who don't, it appears, practice moderation as a life style (again, they're overweight for a reason, and I think we at least agree it's due to excess calories). We have a lot of overweight folks, who are probably malnourished (not just the now well know vitamin-D deficiencies).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.
I don't believe in demonizing foods, per se, but do think pointing out the relative nutritional "value" of a variety of approaches to meeting ones' calorie goals. Perhaps its all lost in "iffym", which, again, I think most of our newer community members don't really understand. So they see: eat the twinkie, and absorb (bad choice of words) little else from the advice offered.
yeah
I read two days of Jonnythan's diary, and yes he is eating a lot. For him though he can eat more calories than me, prolly due to exercise. if i could eat 700 more calories in a day, i too could have his snacks. But i can only have 1600 so i utilize them better, i'd like to eat more solid food like more meat or something like that, rather than snacks.. but i have that 1600 so it doens't go very far with high calorie food. so what am i gonna do? eat less but eat food with more calories, or eat more low-calorie food and get more volume which will fill me up better. (they key for me to not being deprived is to not go hungry). 0 -
Check mine out.
I went back four days. You didn't eat Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday. Then on Tuesday you ate.
You know this isn't sustainable, right? ;-)
I don't log on the weekends/holidays. If you would have checked out Tues-Thurs of last week, you probably wouldn't have liked it so much.
I can't wait for home made apple crisp tonight.
It's calories in vs calories out.
Hey - i have a way to make apple crisp fit my 'deprived" diet - its something like apples, cinamon, nuts crumbled, a bit of brown sugar, and maybe a little butter, and put in microwave and voila! its a delicious dessert AND not fattening AND fits my deprived meal plan
I'll take the one I'm having tonight thanks.
And you're still confusing deprived, BTW.0 -
I just read a few comments, but I am astonished at how many people were criticizing these guys for ditching the soda and junk food. I say good for you guys! The crap need not go into your body. Your body is not a garbage can and food is not supposed to be entertainment. You could lose weight eating ice cream and cake, but you wouldn't be very healthy. Stick to whole, fresh foods. Good going guys!0
-
I just read a few comments, but I am astonished at how many people were criticizing these guys for ditching the soda and junk food. I say good for you guys! The crap need not go into your body. Your body is not a garbage can and food is not supposed to be entertainment. You could lose weight eating ice cream and cake, but you wouldn't be very healthy. Stick to whole, fresh foods. Good going guys!
Again. How does ice cream and cake, in moderation, make you less healthy?0 -
So you basically turned it into a house of deprivation. I will think of you as I enjoy my Ben & Jerry's tonight.
You don't need to rub in it in peoples faces that you have a fit "healthy" body and they don't while commenting that their efforts are trivial!0
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
- 426 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