The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)
Replies
-
By the way, is anybody else disappointed at the examples of "worst" nutrition advice. I mean, not one of those examples was even close to feeding your baby formula on a schedule in 1930.0
-
So far on this page:
Lipid molecules
CHO
Cortisol
Adrenal hormones
Lorentz contraction
Homeostasis
:frown:
I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I'm just adopting the 'eat less, exercise more' approach!
In fact, when I'm next asked how I've been getting in shape, I'm going to say "Well, I've simply contracted my Lorentz to Homeostasis my Lipid molecules so that my CHO is boosted by increasing Cortisol to my Adrenal hormones"
And hope that like me, they haven't a clue what I'm talking about!0 -
So far on this page:
Lipid molecules
CHO
Cortisol
Adrenal hormones
Lorentz contraction
Homeostasis
:frown:
I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I'm just adopting the 'eat less, exercise more' approach!
In fact, when I'm next asked how I've been getting in shape, I'm going to say "Well, I've simply contracted my Lorentz to Homeostasis my Lipid molecules so that my CHO is boosted by increasing Cortisol to my Adrenal hormones"
And hope that like me, they haven't a clue what I'm talking about!
It's called "majoring in the minors". I've seen people -good, smart people- get so involved in the yada yada that they forget to control their portions. You are doing fine. If it's working, keep doing it.0 -
Let's just take a step back for a sec. The underlying assumption of CICO is that the difference between CI and CO is what accounts for weight gain and weight loss, right? But, do you think there is a possibility that there is another factor other than merely the caloric deficit and/or burn that accounts for what weight is shed by the body (not including water fluctuations)? That there could be something else -- whether hormonal, intrinsic to certain foods, medication, etc. -- that either enhances or impedes that weight release?
Because when I look at studies like the one I cited earlier where there were dramatically different weight losses based on macronutrient diets and insulin sensitivity/resistance issues, that's the only thing I can think of to account for that. Because if it was all about calories in and calories out, the results should have been relatively similar -- at least among the same macronutrient diets. And yet, in both groups, one set lost nearly twice as much as the other. In insulin sensitive women, the high carb group lost nearly twice as much body weight as the high fat group. In insulin resistant women, it was the exact opposite -- the high fat group lost nearly twice as much body weight as the high carb group.
Perhaps the study is fundamentally flawed and so it's giving us erroneous results. But, that aside, what else accounts for such a huge difference? Chalking it all up to NEAT where you anticipate a loss based on a 400 daily caloric deficit but is shown to actually be an result closer to a 800 daily caloric deficit seems like a huge difference to me. Especially when we know that certain hormonal imbalances and vitamin deficiencies can impeded weight loss -- whether its excess cortisol, liver enzymes, thyroid, insufficient vitamin D, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that means that energy is created from nothing, just that weight loss may be more than merely the deficit calculation. Why is it such a crazy idea to think that there may be something else that either impedes or enhances weight loss other than the caloric expenditure/deficit?0 -
It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.
Yes. It's so simple it obviously confounds you.
CICO is not an equation. An equation would be CI - CO = CD (where CD is Caloric Deficit).
You admit that other things can factor either side of the "equation," yet you fail to see that CICO is incomplete. If other things can affect the equation, those things are factors, and they ought to be factored in to the equation. To ignore them is to have an incomplete equation.
I stand by what I said earlier: We should follow CICO (or CI - CO = CD). IF it doesn't work for some of us, we should try to find out why, because there is some other unaccounted for factor messing up the simple equation.
And the rest of us should not be judging those people having trouble or trying to impose our simpleton ideas on others.
I have made many posts pointing out that the different sides of the equation (and yes, I know what an equation is, and CICO is an equation, despite my not having implicitly typed out any mathematical symbols) will vary depending on the person. Varying a simple equation does not make it less simple. Figuring out the in and out sides of the simple equation may take some trial and error.
Actually, wouldn't the equation be CI < CO = CD? After all, you're trying to show that the calories out (CO) are greater than the calories in (CI). THAT'S what equals the calorie deficit. If the equation is calories in minus calories out equals calorie deficit, it's not necessarily true, unless the CI is less than the CO, which would leave a negative number.
Example: 1200 calories in - 300 calories out = 900 calories, which is not a deficit, so this is not a true statement.
of course, it COULD be 1200 calories in - 1500 calories out = deficit, which is true but not necessarily, depending upon the variables.
But, for CI < CO = CD, CI must be a smaller number than CO to make the statement true.
Example 1200 calories in < (less than) 1500 calories out = a deficit of 300 calories, which is also a true statement.0 -
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.0
-
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Bingo!0 -
It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.
Yes. It's so simple it obviously confounds you.
CICO is not an equation. An equation would be CI - CO = CD (where CD is Caloric Deficit).
You admit that other things can factor either side of the "equation," yet you fail to see that CICO is incomplete. If other things can affect the equation, those things are factors, and they ought to be factored in to the equation. To ignore them is to have an incomplete equation.
I stand by what I said earlier: We should follow CICO (or CI - CO = CD). IF it doesn't work for some of us, we should try to find out why, because there is some other unaccounted for factor messing up the simple equation.
And the rest of us should not be judging those people having trouble or trying to impose our simpleton ideas on others.
I have made many posts pointing out that the different sides of the equation (and yes, I know what an equation is, and CICO is an equation, despite my not having implicitly typed out any mathematical symbols) will vary depending on the person. Varying a simple equation does not make it less simple. Figuring out the in and out sides of the simple equation may take some trial and error.
Actually, wouldn't the equation be CI < CO = CD? After all, you're trying to show that the calories out (CO) are greater than the calories in (CI). THAT'S what equals the calorie deficit. If the equation is calories in minus calories out equals calorie deficit, it's not necessarily true, unless the CI is less than the CO, which would leave a negative number.
Example: 1200 calories in - 300 calories out = 900 calories, which is not a deficit, so this is not a true statement.
of course, it COULD be 1200 calories in - 1500 calories out = deficit, which is true but not necessarily, depending upon the variables.
But, for CI < CO = CD, CI must be a smaller number than CO to make the statement true.
Example 1200 calories in < (less than) 1500 calories out = a deficit of 300 calories, which is also a true statement.
In your first example, neither of those can be true. If you end up with a deficit, the person will lose weight. The same for your second example. There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.0 -
To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.
Bingo!
Thank you! I was always pretty good at operationalizing theory. :laugh:0 -
There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.
Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually0 -
There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.
Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually
that would violate the laws of physics.
even if you are talking about food calories that can pass through undigested, those calories would have to show up as part of the calorie out side of the equation (e.g. waste).0 -
Meh. Uninteresting. He is citing extreme diets (no eggs) and inventing strawmen (high carb diet for diabetics is bad - no duh!).
At least one of the government suggestions he complains about has already been reversed "5. Replace Natural Butter With Processed, Trans Fat Laden Margarine" Now the gov't is against transfats.
If you write enough, you will pull in some people.0 -
There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.
Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually
I'm not sure about all the ins and outs of diabetes, but doesn't that kind of happen where blood glucose gets raised because the energy is neither used by the cells nor stored as fat?0 -
What about this nutrition advice?
http://modernretrowoman.com/2010/01/06/wartime-meal-planning-part-2-basic-7/0 -
Holy cow.... yall should all be nutritionists and scientists.
I agree with the article, however, I thought most of the 5 points were old news and general knowledge. I didn't know anyone still thought a low-fat, high-carb diet is healthy, or that fake butter is better than real, or that corn and soybean oils are healthy.
Just eat real food.0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely, and that's from personal experience. I have tried pretty much every type of "diet" under the sun, and I've failed miserably. I believe the reason for that was because I was not getting the proper nutrition. My new mantra is that DIET FOODS ARE NOT HEALTHY FOODS.
A lot of people on here seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that weight loss and nutrition SHOULD go hand in hand. Everyone seems to be saying "well they're completely different", but they don't have to be. You can lose weight eating nutritious foods because when your body is getting the proper nutrition, you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. It seems to me like a lot of people try to justify eating junk, and "diet" junk in order to lose weight. It's true... calorie deficit results in weight loss, but try maintaining a lifestyle where you're eating butter substitutes, light bread, light yogurt, and other diet foods long term. You'll feel like crap because you're not getting the nutrients that you need to STAY HEALTHY.
You don't need to starve yourself or severely limit foods that are actually good for you in order to lose weight. My husband and I have been eating this way for over a month now (I know it's not a long time, but for people who have literally tried EVERYTHING, we have finally found something that we feel we can stick with for the rest of our lives). We don't feel like we're going without. We don't even miss some of the things we've given up. I am counting calories because that is my personal preference and I want to keep an eye on what I am eating, but he hasn't been counting and he is doing just fine! We're not eating "clean" (we still enjoy our deli meats for lunches and the occasional ice cream), we are just eating much healthier than we were before, and we're limiting a lot of the processed foods that we were eating. We're keeping the junk food and the trigger foods out of the house. Basically our new rule is that if a food has no nutrition value whatsoever, we don't even bother with it (unless it's something we're really craving, and in that case we just have a very small amount). I know this post is very long, but I'm just trying to share what my/our personal experience has been and how it's working for us.
And I'm not new at this... I lost 145 lbs several years ago by doing it the "wrong" way by eating low fat/low carb/chemical laden processed foods, and I lost the weight but I had several issues. I felt faint regularly and passed out several times, I had no muscle mass, and when it came to maintenance time I had no idea how to maintain my weight and eat a healthy balanced diet. I just want other people to hear what I have to say so that they don't fall into the same trap.0 -
There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.
Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually
that would violate the laws of physics.
even if you are talking about food calories that can pass through undigested, those calories would have to show up as part of the calorie out side of the equation (e.g. waste).
Ok I'll alter the point so as to cause no ambiguity.
There are scenarios where a person consumes more calories than they use, but the person does not gain weight eventually0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely,
How can you agree with it completely though when parts of it have been proven to be untrue?
"Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed."
They simply were not. That is completely made up0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely, and that's from personal experience. I have tried pretty much every type of "diet" under the sun, and I've failed miserably. I believe the reason for that was because I was not getting the proper nutrition. My new mantra is that DIET FOODS ARE NOT HEALTHY FOODS.
A lot of people on here seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that weight loss and nutrition SHOULD go hand in hand. Everyone seems to be saying "well they're completely different", but they don't have to be. You can lose weight eating nutritious foods because when your body is getting the proper nutrition, you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. It seems to me like a lot of people try to justify eating junk, and "diet" junk in order to lose weight. It's true... calorie deficit results in weight loss, but try maintaining a lifestyle where you're eating butter substitutes, light bread, light yogurt, and other diet foods long term. You'll feel like crap because you're not getting the nutrients that you need to STAY HEALTHY.
You don't need to starve yourself or severely limit foods that are actually good for you in order to lose weight. My husband and I have been eating this way for over a month now (I know it's not a long time, but for people who have literally tried EVERYTHING, we have finally found something that we feel we can stick with for the rest of our lives). We don't feel like we're going without. We don't even miss some of the things we've given up. I am counting calories because that is my personal preference and I want to keep an eye on what I am eating, but he hasn't been counting and he is doing just fine! We're not eating "clean" (we still enjoy our deli meats for lunches and the occasional ice cream), we are just eating much healthier than we were before, and we're limiting a lot of the processed foods that we were eating. We're keeping the junk food and the trigger foods out of the house. Basically our new rule is that if a food has no nutrition value whatsoever, we don't even bother with it (unless it's something we're really craving, and in that case we just have a very small amount). I know this post is very long, but I'm just trying to share what my/our personal experience has been and how it's working for us.
And I'm not new at this... I lost 145 lbs several years ago by doing it the "wrong" way by eating low fat/low carb/chemical laden processed foods, and I lost the weight but I had several issues. I felt faint regularly and passed out several times, I had no muscle mass, and when it came to maintenance time I had no idea how to maintain my weight and eat a healthy balanced diet. I just want other people to hear what I have to say so that they don't fall into the same trap.
That is awesome for you! I'm glad that you have discovered how a healthy, balanced diet can support an active lifestyle - it will be great for you in the long run.
The rebuttal is that there are people on this website who have gained weight eating nothing but healthy, unprocessed food because they didn't limit their portion sizes for one reason or another.0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely,
How can you agree with it completely though when parts of it have been proven to be untrue?
"Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed."
They simply were not. That is completely made up
I guess you're right... people are healthier and leaner now than when they used to have to kill their own animals for food and grow their own produce.0 -
I didn't read the article word for word but I do believe in eating the whole egg and never throw away the nutritious and tasty yolk. A dietician prescribed a fairly high carb diet for my borderline diabetic husband. I was shocked because that does drive his blood sugar up. I don't believe fat is bad for you unless it's trans fat. I do believe that you have to limit fat and carbs and count calories. I try to make sure and get 5-7 servings of fruits and vegetables each day. That's my major goal. YES, I do think science has and our medical practitioners have totally lead us astray and I take most things with a grain of salt. I read a lot from a lot of sources and decide on my own!0
-
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely, and that's from personal experience. I have tried pretty much every type of "diet" under the sun, and I've failed miserably. I believe the reason for that was because I was not getting the proper nutrition. My new mantra is that DIET FOODS ARE NOT HEALTHY FOODS.
A lot of people on here seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that weight loss and nutrition SHOULD go hand in hand. Everyone seems to be saying "well they're completely different", but they don't have to be. You can lose weight eating nutritious foods because when your body is getting the proper nutrition, you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. It seems to me like a lot of people try to justify eating junk, and "diet" junk in order to lose weight. It's true... calorie deficit results in weight loss, but try maintaining a lifestyle where you're eating butter substitutes, light bread, light yogurt, and other diet foods long term. You'll feel like crap because you're not getting the nutrients that you need to STAY HEALTHY.
You don't need to starve yourself or severely limit foods that are actually good for you in order to lose weight. My husband and I have been eating this way for over a month now (I know it's not a long time, but for people who have literally tried EVERYTHING, we have finally found something that we feel we can stick with for the rest of our lives). We don't feel like we're going without. We don't even miss some of the things we've given up. I am counting calories because that is my personal preference and I want to keep an eye on what I am eating, but he hasn't been counting and he is doing just fine! We're not eating "clean" (we still enjoy our deli meats for lunches and the occasional ice cream), we are just eating much healthier than we were before, and we're limiting a lot of the processed foods that we were eating. We're keeping the junk food and the trigger foods out of the house. Basically our new rule is that if a food has no nutrition value whatsoever, we don't even bother with it (unless it's something we're really craving, and in that case we just have a very small amount). I know this post is very long, but I'm just trying to share what my/our personal experience has been and how it's working for us.
And I'm not new at this... I lost 145 lbs several years ago by doing it the "wrong" way by eating low fat/low carb/chemical laden processed foods, and I lost the weight but I had several issues. I felt faint regularly and passed out several times, I had no muscle mass, and when it came to maintenance time I had no idea how to maintain my weight and eat a healthy balanced diet. I just want other people to hear what I have to say so that they don't fall into the same trap.
That is awesome for you! I'm glad that you have discovered how a healthy, balanced diet can support an active lifestyle - it will be great for you in the long run.
The rebuttal is that there are people on this website who have gained weight eating nothing but healthy, unprocessed food because they didn't limit their portion sizes for one reason or another.
I agree with you on the portion size thing... it's something that has always been a huge problem for me. That is why I'm continuing to track and measure out portions so that I can re-train myself so that I don't have to count calories for the rest of my life. I never was taught what a proper sized portion of meat was, or anything else for that matter. My family just didn't eat that way (as a lot of families don't). That's why I'm educating myself now to be able to live a "normal" life in the future. MFP has been an extremely valuable tool for me in that I'm holding myself accountable and measuring out portions to see what I SHOULD be eating.0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely, and that's from personal experience. I have tried pretty much every type of "diet" under the sun, and I've failed miserably. I believe the reason for that was because I was not getting the proper nutrition. My new mantra is that DIET FOODS ARE NOT HEALTHY FOODS.
A lot of people on here seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that weight loss and nutrition SHOULD go hand in hand. Everyone seems to be saying "well they're completely different", but they don't have to be. You can lose weight eating nutritious foods because when your body is getting the proper nutrition, you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. It seems to me like a lot of people try to justify eating junk, and "diet" junk in order to lose weight. It's true... calorie deficit results in weight loss, but try maintaining a lifestyle where you're eating butter substitutes, light bread, light yogurt, and other diet foods long term. You'll feel like crap because you're not getting the nutrients that you need to STAY HEALTHY.
You don't need to starve yourself or severely limit foods that are actually good for you in order to lose weight. My husband and I have been eating this way for over a month now (I know it's not a long time, but for people who have literally tried EVERYTHING, we have finally found something that we feel we can stick with for the rest of our lives). We don't feel like we're going without. We don't even miss some of the things we've given up. I am counting calories because that is my personal preference and I want to keep an eye on what I am eating, but he hasn't been counting and he is doing just fine! We're not eating "clean" (we still enjoy our deli meats for lunches and the occasional ice cream), we are just eating much healthier than we were before, and we're limiting a lot of the processed foods that we were eating. We're keeping the junk food and the trigger foods out of the house. Basically our new rule is that if a food has no nutrition value whatsoever, we don't even bother with it (unless it's something we're really craving, and in that case we just have a very small amount). I know this post is very long, but I'm just trying to share what my/our personal experience has been and how it's working for us.
And I'm not new at this... I lost 145 lbs several years ago by doing it the "wrong" way by eating low fat/low carb/chemical laden processed foods, and I lost the weight but I had several issues. I felt faint regularly and passed out several times, I had no muscle mass, and when it came to maintenance time I had no idea how to maintain my weight and eat a healthy balanced diet. I just want other people to hear what I have to say so that they don't fall into the same trap.
That's great that it works for you.
But it's not something that works for everybody. My way of losing the few pounds I need to each year would probably be frowned upon, but it certainly works for me without any doubt.
There's no way that I would try to convince others that, protein shakes/bars is the best way to lose weight an be healthy, but I have learned that it is undoubtedly the best way for me0 -
How silly is it to get nutrition advice from mainstream media and then be surprised that it is wrong?0
-
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely,
How can you agree with it completely though when parts of it have been proven to be untrue?
"Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed."
They simply were not. That is completely made up
True. Until recently people died at what we would consider a fairly young age. For example, in Shakespeare's time, the life expectency for a male in England was about 35 years.
Edited to add: I don't think this is a peer-reviewed article, but I believe it's pretty accurate anyway.
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/londondisease.html0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely,
How can you agree with it completely though when parts of it have been proven to be untrue?
"Humans were the healthiest and leanest way before they knew that calories existed."
They simply were not. That is completely made up
I guess you're right... people are healthier and leaner now than when they used to have to kill their own animals for food and grow their own produce.
They were certainly leaner back then - the vast majority were malnourished.
No way were they healthier though
2000 years ago - life expectancy = 30
Victorian age - life expectancy = 40
People were not healthier in days gone by, that's a fact0 -
I'm amazed by how much this article seems to be angering some people... I agree with it completely, and that's from personal experience. I have tried pretty much every type of "diet" under the sun, and I've failed miserably. I believe the reason for that was because I was not getting the proper nutrition. My new mantra is that DIET FOODS ARE NOT HEALTHY FOODS.
A lot of people on here seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that weight loss and nutrition SHOULD go hand in hand. Everyone seems to be saying "well they're completely different", but they don't have to be. You can lose weight eating nutritious foods because when your body is getting the proper nutrition, you don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. It seems to me like a lot of people try to justify eating junk, and "diet" junk in order to lose weight. It's true... calorie deficit results in weight loss, but try maintaining a lifestyle where you're eating butter substitutes, light bread, light yogurt, and other diet foods long term. You'll feel like crap because you're not getting the nutrients that you need to STAY HEALTHY.
You don't need to starve yourself or severely limit foods that are actually good for you in order to lose weight. My husband and I have been eating this way for over a month now (I know it's not a long time, but for people who have literally tried EVERYTHING, we have finally found something that we feel we can stick with for the rest of our lives). We don't feel like we're going without. We don't even miss some of the things we've given up. I am counting calories because that is my personal preference and I want to keep an eye on what I am eating, but he hasn't been counting and he is doing just fine! We're not eating "clean" (we still enjoy our deli meats for lunches and the occasional ice cream), we are just eating much healthier than we were before, and we're limiting a lot of the processed foods that we were eating. We're keeping the junk food and the trigger foods out of the house. Basically our new rule is that if a food has no nutrition value whatsoever, we don't even bother with it (unless it's something we're really craving, and in that case we just have a very small amount). I know this post is very long, but I'm just trying to share what my/our personal experience has been and how it's working for us.
And I'm not new at this... I lost 145 lbs several years ago by doing it the "wrong" way by eating low fat/low carb/chemical laden processed foods, and I lost the weight but I had several issues. I felt faint regularly and passed out several times, I had no muscle mass, and when it came to maintenance time I had no idea how to maintain my weight and eat a healthy balanced diet. I just want other people to hear what I have to say so that they don't fall into the same trap.
That's great that it works for you.
But it's not something that works for everybody. My way of losing the few pounds I need to each year would probably be frowned upon, but it certainly works for me without any doubt.
There's no way that I would try to convince others that, protein shakes/bars is the best way to lose weight an be healthy, but I have learned that it is undoubtedly the best way for me
I will say that I agree - what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. Everyone has their own methods for weight loss, and it's awesome when you find the one that works for you. It's just my personal perspective that maintaining a healthy weight and proper nutrition is just as important as losing the weight in the first place, and it's easier to transition from weight loss to weight/nutrition maintenance if you have been practicing all along. I guess that's what I'm really trying to get at.0 -
I like the article, mostly correct IMO.
Looking forward to seeing where this thread goes - as it totally disses calorie counting (which I personally think works).
I couldn't help but laugh after I read the article and then your post and gif. I was eating popcorn as I read the article.0 -
1. Throw Away The Egg Yolks, The Most Nutritious Part of The Egg
Eggs are among the most nutritious foods on the planet.
Just think about it… the nutrients in a whole egg contain all the building blocks needed to turn a single fertilized cell into an entire baby chicken.
There’s only one problem… the yolks also happen to be high in cholesterol.
Because egg yolks are high in cholesterol, people believed that they would raise cholesterol in the blood. For this reason, mainstream nutrition professionals often recommend that we limit our egg consumption to 2-6 whole eggs per week.
However, most of them say we can eat more eggs than that… as long as we make sure to throw away the yolks.
This is pretty much the worst thing you could do, because the yolks contain almost all the nutrients. The whites are mostly just protein.
I saw this article circulating on facebook the other day. I can understand the egg one. Yes, eat egg yolks, they aren't the devil. However, someone who is seeking eggs as a large source of their daily protein (such as vegetarians, or people on a tight budget that may not allow for a lot of meat) may not want to eat 6 eggs in a single sitting to acquire 36g of protein, along with the 30g of fat and 420 calories, when they can get the same amount of protein out of 1.25 cups of egg whites for around 35g protein, minimal or zero fat, and only 150 calories. That isn't to say that this person doesn't eat egg yolks in addition to that, but egg whites are a great low calorie protein source when trying to hit your macros and stay in your calorie goal as well.
If I'm looking for a high protein meal/snack (and since I'm vegetarian), I may have a couple whole eggs, with a bunch of egg whites to double the protein, without doubling the fat, cholesterol, and calories as well.
In a 70 calorie egg, 17 calories are from the white which contains 4g of the protein, and 53 calories in the yolk that contains only 2g protein, but also all of the fat and some good nutrients. For a person trying to create a caloric deficit while also wanting to hit their protein goal, it makes sense to not eat EVERY yolk.
I wouldn't throw them out though. I buy both cartons of egg whites, as well as whole local eggs so I actually don't have to throw anything away and can enjoy both, depending on my macros for the day.0 -
Holy cow.... yall should all be nutritionists and scientists.
I agree with the article, however, I thought most of the 5 points were old news and general knowledge. I didn't know anyone still thought a low-fat, high-carb diet is healthy, or that fake butter is better than real, or that corn and soybean oils are healthy.
Just eat real food.
I'll absolutely agree with you about the "fake" butter. How are corn and soybean oil not "healthy" or "real food"? Soybeans are real food and soybean oil is expressed from them. Corn is definitely real food, I've seen it grown and picked it in the field, same as the soybeans.
I've eaten a low-fat diet as long as I can remember and I have some health issues but those are, unfortunately, genetic, and I am able to control them to some extent with my low-fat, medium carb, medium-high protein diet. Complex carbs are excellent forms of fiber and nutrition (I think you mean things like white flour and sugar?)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
- 427 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