Why do people seem to bash "healthy"eating?

No one is bashing healthy eating. What's mainly being said is moderation, stay away from extremes.

But what if you find moderation and calorie counting unsustainabl! What do you do then?

how would it be unsustainable? And what then is "sustainable" eliminating a whole group of foods because they are "bad"….

It's that statement right there that pretty much cements my view of certain members on this forum!

Counting calories works, cutting food groups I.e LCHF works.

Some will find calorie counting unsustainable, some will find cutting food groups unsustainable - do you really not get it or was your post supposed to be tongue in cheek (I really hope it's the latter).

I never said one worked better then the other..my question is what is sustainable then? In my personal opinion, it is easier to track calories rather then avoid a whole food group because it has been deemed "bad." Using the phone app takes me about five minutes to log all my food for the day ..I do not see how five minutes of my time to log calories is not "sustainable"..

I answered in a post earlier. When eating the same foods that I tended to over eat on, when trying to eat the same food in smaller portions I always felt hungry when I hit my calorie target for the day. Not very pleasant.

Now however my appetite is under control - I don't ever eat until afternoon (which is when I am hungry for the first time of the day).

I have constant energy, and at weekends I can do a 12 mile hike, or 20 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning on a cup of coffee.

Different people find different things easy and hard - you say that you would struggle on cutting out grain and wheat - for me it's easy, don't miss it, don't crave it. LCHF has been a breeze.

I've so far lost 8 inches off my waist, 25lbs in weight and I've not logged I gram of food.

if I cut out carbs I would be a miserable, cranky, tired mess and my gym performance would go in the tank….

that being said, the fact that you do not count calories does not make it not "sustainable"..I have a feeling that plenty of people doing LCHF diets log their calories ….I have some low carbers on my FL and they log their calories…

so I still fail to see how calorie counting is not sustainable….you could do LCHF and log your calories, you just choose not to, which is fine but that does not make it unsustainable...

Calorie counting unsustainable - just look beyond MFP (a majority of members will be having great success with it and long may that continue) but the ones that start it and find it unsustainable normally leave MFP.

In regards to people doing LCHF and calorie counting, I should think there are lots.

If I didn't hate logging and weighting my food I would probably do it as now I have less appetite I doubt I would still be hungry once I hit my calorie target.

The fact I am comfortably losing weight though would probably mean I'm intuitively eating in a deficit quite well though.

As I've said for the past couple of months I have nothing against calorie counting, it's just not everyone's cup of tea and not is low carb.

I agree with you on the calorie counting. Calorie counting is a great tool to help in weight loss and possibly weight gain, and it aids in learning portion size but I don't see calorie counting as being a sustainable way of eating for the rest of one's life. I think that calorie counting for an extended period of time has the potential to create an unhealthy relationship with food. Think of calorie counting as training wheels when learning to ride a bicycle. Once you've mastered the balancing skills, you no longer need the training wheels.

Possibly??? It is essential (IMHO).

And your training wheel analogy? Why? What is wrong with counting calories for an extended period of time? I've been doing it for almost three years. What danger am I in?

Possibly, yes if intentionally trying to gain weight. It's amazing how many folk gain weight with very little effort other than over eating, no calorie counting needed :huh:

Counting calories for an extended period of time has the potential of creating an unhealthy relationship with food.

So does counting calories in the short term so I don't really see what your point is. Many have said that since it takes so little time out of their day, they'd have no problems counting calories for life.

IMO, the hundreds of threads asking 'how clean is X?' are a big pain, and I can understand why people get frustrated at seeing it over and over. Is a factory-produced protein bar clean enough to pass my healthy lips? Is a calorie from a pizza somehow stickier than a calorie from a grape?

It honestly just sounds like people want to be told what they're allowed to eat, using 'clean' as the umbrella term for the latest quick-fix crash diet, instead of figuring out habits and patterns that work for their beliefs and lifestyle. And those 'what am I allowed to eat' diets definitely do not have a long-term success rate.

Those people who make the decision to cut out whatever foods they think are damaging, aim to be healthy as much as possible (i.e 80/20) and who know they can sustain their habits for a lifetime seem to just be caught in the crossfire when it comes to the 'clean' people vs. the IIFYM people.

I whole heartedly agree with you that these types of posts are a pain. The problem is in most cases they are troll posts made with the intention of stirring the pot. They like to get one or more members upset enough to 'quit' or at least display what they refer to as 'butthurt'. It is very much their source of entertainment. Take a close look at who starts them and the position they have taken on other threads.

If someone is truly interested in finding out if a particular food is considered clean, or healthy, or any other label he/she will do the research without bashing it out on a forum. They will also research and experiment with what works best for them. The problem comes when someone says something works for them or they share their experience with eating a certain way, only to be bashed by other members. MFP is a wonderful resource but the forums are brutal.

FWIW, many of the vocal IIFYM are taking that ideal out of context as well. IIFYM is very much a restrictive diet definitely not an 'eat whatever you want' diet. The ones claiming they eat all the pizza and ice cream they want as long as it fits their macros likely aren't meeting their macros. The problem with this is new members buy into the eat whatever they want then can't figure out why the scale isn't moving.

[Counting calories for an extended period of time has the potential of creating an unhealthy relationship with food.

Basically everything people do around food in our charged culture has the potential of creating an unhealthy relationship, and some are probably more prone than others or have different tendencies.

But it really depends. In this internet age lots of people monitor all kinds of things, bc it's easy, and I am not convinced that tracking calories, which is informative, poses more risks than tracking the miles I run, which is motivational, if also "unnatural." If one is stressing more as a result of tracking or won't eat where it's not possible or that sort of thing, that's a sign, but surely people can see these kinds of issues without insisting the whole activity for all is suspect.

I know I can lose weight without counting. I have before. I just used what I would have claimed was common sense and "cleaned up" my diet, by which I personally meant cutting carbs, reducing added fats, and avoiding obviously high cal foods, especially dessert items. If you looked at the foods I ate, they were all what counts as healthy--nothing in a box, nothing that counts as "diet food" unless you'd include skim milk. I know from the past when I eat that way weight drops off.

When I decided to do it this time I'd been logging exercise off and on, so decided to log my food too, and was shocked to see my common sense plan was coming in at 800-900 calories. No wonder I could lose weight quickly on it, but NOT healthy, despite my food choices. Currently tracking makes me less prone to obsession and overkill.

I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.

I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.

Just wondering.....

I think a lot of the people who get really extreme in bashing healthy eating are either doing it to seem smart/be jerks, or because they think when you mean healthy (or clean, or whatever healthy eating plan you're talking about) you mean 100% healthy 100% of the time with no wiggle room. They often seem to assume healthy means absolutely no room for unhealthy, when the truth is that most of the people I've seen who are on these kinds of healthy eating plans tend to say they follow an 80/20 rule, or a 90/10 rule, etc. They try to eat as healthy as possible most of the time but don't feel guilty if they have a treat now and then, because it's not going to hurt them and probably helps their quality of life to enjoy things they love even if they're not healthy.

I doubt anyone (or almost anyone) is actually advocating never ever ever eating a single unhealthy thing again. Sure, some people will 100% give up a particular unhealthy food, whether it's breads, or ice cream, or pizza or whatever. And if they can do that and still be totally happy, then all the power to them. If you can't, then that's fine. Everyone's going to be different. And while you may never have an issue giving up chocolate, that might be what they eat as a treat. It's not being extreme to say you're giving up a food entirely if you can do so and still be healthy and happy; why WOULDN'T you cut out something unhealthy if there were no negative repercussions on yourself? I'd personally cut out all of those treat foods if I'd never miss them, etc. because my diet would be much healthier that way. But the truth is for me I do enjoy many of those foods and thus am ok making room for them in my otherwise healthy diet. But there are some foods I don't miss at all - bread for instance. It's been essentially completely eliminated from my diet and I'm 100% happy with that. Does that make me extreme? I don't think so.

Eating healthy IS something everyone should idealistically strive for because it will increase your health. But everyone's healthy diet will be different, and I doubt anyone's arguing for a 100% nothing but healthy foods diet 100% of the time. Unfortunately the healthy bashers seem to think that's all that healthy can possibly mean.

I am still waiting to find out who those "health bashers" are?????

I have never seen anyone call someone out for eating healthy ….or say "well you should really just 100% of your diet from twinkies.."

I've seen plenty. Maybe not saying eat 100% of your diet from Twinkies, but the ones who call people out for eating healthy. Just view any of the clean eating threads lately and you'll see some people who don't identify as clean eaters bashing those who are or who are interested in that way of eating for trying to limit the amount of unhealthy food they eat - aka, for trying to eat healthier.

As I said in my post, I think a lot of the time those bashers are confused by the idea of healthy or clean eating and somehow think it means you can never eat anything unhealthy as a treat ever again, and then they try to argue that that's unsustainable and extreme, etc. when the truth is clean eating or healthy eating still allows room for the occasional treat, etc. In fact it's probably very similar to how many of them eat, they just don't take the time to think that through before jumping in and bashing people.

Just like people in this thread have been saying things like 'it's annoying when people start threads asking if a certain food is clean'. Why? I mean, clean is generally subjective so they should be able to tell if the food fits into their own guidelines for clean, but why does it bother you? Whether they're doing it to follow a plan or because they are just genuinely interested in clean eating for their health, why does it affect you? Some people do better following a plan with strict and rigid guidelines - they do better being told what to eat, when, how much, etc. because then they don't have to fight with themselves about those questions. Others are just interested in revamping their diet one food at a time, and maybe they're curious as to other clean eaters' perspectives on a particular food. Either way, it's not affecting you and it's not unhealthy so there's neither reason for it to annoy you nor for it to make you feel like you should step in in a friendly manner to tell someone what they're doing is going to hurt them. Different plans are going to work for different people, and different things are going to be sustainable for different people. People also have different goals. Some people only care about losing weight, and really don't care if they do so eating 100% healthy food, 100% unhealthy food, or a moderate mix. Some want to both lose weight AND focus on eating healthier food, for various reasons. If that's not for you then that's great; to each their own. But bashing people for wanting to eat healthier is like bashing people for wanting to exercise more or better - on a site dedicated to health and weight loss, why bash something that's good for you?

I don't think anyone bashes healthy eating.

What they bash is dietary extremism (and rightly so.)

Unfortunately sometimes those bashing dietary extremism become extreme and then they get bashed for extremism and then things go round...and...round...and round...like joggers.

Fortunately nobody to date has mentioned the band "Extreme" and their popular ditty "Get the Funk Out". That would be sick.

I don't think anyone bashes healthy eating.

What they bash is dietary extremism (and rightly so.)

Unfortunately sometimes those bashing dietary extremism become extreme and then they get bashed for extremism and then things go round...and...round...and round...like joggers.

Fortunately nobody to date has mentioned the band "Extreme" and their popular ditty "Get the Funk Out". That would be sick.

No, they do not have the 'right' to bash what they have deemed as a dietary extremism. They are being judgmental over a dietary choice and lifestyle they do not agree with. It's none of their business.

But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.

Just wondering.....

QUANTITIES is the keyword!

I've been going through lots of posts, and I see this very often: "It doesn't matter what you eat, losing weight is a matter of taking in fewer calories than you use" or "If it fits your macros, then all is fine". Isn't losing weight a part of getting healthy (or healthier) for most people? If that assumption is true (and after reading some of these posts, I'm not sure it is), then why does everyone say it is OK to eat all the processed foods that are in the American diet and has lead us, as a nation, to be the fattest industrialized nation on earth? And we know obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, stroke....not exactly what I would call healthy.

I'm not advocating not having a treat if you want it (this from someone who had some chocolate ice cream last night). But I don't see how eating fast foods and processed foods in the quantities offered out there can possibly be healthy. And so many people on MFP don't just say it is OK, but seem to encourage their consumption.

Just wondering.....

To be brutally honest, I think some people find it threatening for some reason. I find it pretty bizarre that any mention of healthy eating gets so attacked; I've never come across a similar response in life that didn't have at least some fear behind it.

I noticed this as well in the forums.

It's true that weight loss is about calories in/out. I think there's so many people advocating "if it fits your macros, eat it" because there are so many people on here talking about how they completely cut out meat/dairy/carbs/etc. from their diet and they're snacking on celery sticks but their cravings are getting worse by the day. I think we're just trying to get through to these people that you don't have to cut ANYTHING out of your diet. If you want a piece of chocolate, eat it.

I'm naturally eating "healthier" while losing because I would rather eat more food than less, and the "healthy" stuff generally allows me to do that. Yeah, I could eat two 400 calorie donuts for breakfast, but that would leave me hungry the rest of the day with only 700 calories left in my caloric budget. I'd rather have my yummy oatmeal and coffee for 275 calories, be satisfied when I'm done, and still have lunch, my afternoon snack, and dinner to look forward to. I don't have a huge problem with cravings because I "save" my exercise calories for the weekend and allow myself to be more lax on food choices. If I DID have a strong craving during the week, though, I could have a donut and still lose weight, as long as I planned the rest of the day's food to fit into my macros.

It does annoy me when people say things like, "Egg whites? Just eat the whole egg!" or "PB2 is crap, eat the real thing." If I could fit these things into my calories, and I can/do a lot of the time, I would. However, if I'm having a boiled egg for my snack, I don't see anything wrong with using egg whites at lunch and saving a few calories. It's not a huge sacrifice to me. If I didn't like the taste of just egg whites, I'd eat the whole egg and work it into my goal. If I want to use PB2 to add the flavor of peanut butter to my protein shake and use 25 calories instead of 100, then I don't see a problem with that. It's not like I'm never going to eat peanut butter again because it's high in calories. But if I can use a substitute and still enjoy the food, while being able to eat more for the rest of the day, that's what I'm going to do.

There's nothing wrong with eating "healthy," but some people take that to the extreme when it's totally unnecessary.

To be brutally honest, I think some people find it threatening for some reason. I find it pretty bizarre that any mention of healthy eating gets so attacked; I've never come across a similar response in life that didn't have at least some fear behind it.

I could throw that right back at the people that feel the need to label foods as 'healthy' and thus others not.
I suspect this IS more of a case of 'fear', personally.

I would suggest though that most people on MFP are not at either end of your spectrum. I should think a lot of the moderation crew over indulge from time to time and the LCHF gang will sometimes eat a little higher carb than they would on a normal day.

Yep, I agree.

However I think the number of LCHF'ers who go onto IIFYM or moderation threads pushing their particular diet is small compared to the IIFYM/moderation crew who come onto LCHF or paleo/primal or clean eating threads touting their wares!

People's perceptions vary of course. That maybe the case or it may simply appear to be that way because traditional elimination / excessive restriction diets are so common that the proportionally small number of times they get challenged by the Moderation crew seem to add up to a lot.

I don't think anyone bashes healthy eating.

What they bash is dietary extremism (and rightly so.)

Unfortunately sometimes those bashing dietary extremism become extreme and then they get bashed for extremism and then things go round...and...round...and round...like joggers.

Fortunately nobody to date has mentioned the band "Extreme" and their popular ditty "Get the Funk Out". That would be sick.

No, they do not have the 'right' to bash what they have deemed as a dietary extremism. They are being judgmental over a dietary choice and lifestyle they do not agree with. It's none of their business.

Yes, they certainly can do if that dietary extremism is actually harmful and perpetuates false and unsupportable beliefs which makes other people miserable and proponents of a certain way of eating insist it must be done in that way. It's everyone's business in that scenario.

I do not take issue with anyone's personal preferences when it comes to eating but rather when they insist others must follow that way for no good reason other than an unfounded belief.

What's harmful about clean eating or LCHF?

Nothing in of itself and they can work spectacularly well if it fits a person's preferences, particularly their psychology.

It's really a mindset I am talking about here rather than what people choose to put in their mouth.

Tiiter ye not.