How important is it to "eat clean"
Replies
-
35% of the american population, not the world. im not american, and if im not mistaken america has the highest rates of diabetes so that would be a worst case scenario if we're talking a general population standpointi wasnt comparing insulin resistance to type 2 diabetes, i was comparing people with insulin resistance to people who dont have such issues
any time you talk about someone with a medical issue that effects weight loss it IS a separate case, people with insulin resistance is a special case. their bodies react differently and therefore store fat differently when exposed to excess sugar amounts, so its kinda like comparing apples and oranges.
Again, 35% of the American public is prediabetic so it already applies to a large portion of people trying to lose weight. Additionally eating refined sugar causes insulin resistance which is my big overall point. That's why you can't blindly say that eating a 25% of your calories from refined sugar (what the average American does) will produce the same results because it's likely this diet if continued will at minimum lead to increased insulin resistance.
but in any case i do see your point, although im not inclined to agree insulin resistance is so easily achieved
You are mistaken.
http://www.idf.org/latest-diabetes-figures-paint-grim-global-picture
India is the country with the most people with diabetes, with a current figure of 50.8 million, followed by China with 43.2 million. Behind them the United States (26.8 million); the Russian Federation (9.6 million); Brazil (7.6 million); Germany (7.5 million); Pakistan (7.1 million); Japan (7.1 million); Indonesia (7 million) and Mexico (6.8 million).
When it comes to the percentage of adult population living with diabetes, the new data reveal the devastating impact of diabetes across the Gulf Region, where five of the Gulf States are among the top ten countries affected. The Pacific island nation of Nauru has the world’s highest rate of diabetes, with almost a third of its adult population (30.9%) living with the disease. It is followed by the United Arab Emirates (18.7%); Saudi Arabia (16.8%); Mauritius (16.2%); Bahrain (15.4%); Reunion (15.3%); Kuwait (14.6%); Oman (13.4%); Tonga (13.4%) and Malaysia (11.6%).
How DARE you actually research something????0 -
-
Thank you!0 -
We know some of these additives are addictive which is why you can't eat just one chip.
I think these kinds of statements are part of why "clean" eating gets flack here. It's the suggestion that some kinds of foods are scary and have power over those who eat them, not because of any particular issues the eater has, but because they are so bad and dangerous. Personally, I don't eat chips, since I don't like them enough to spend the calories (unlike roasted potatoes), but even when I did I certainly could eat just one. Overeating chips (or fast food or lots of other demonized foods) was never really my problem--even though I obviously overate. People keep eating chips not because the ingredients make it impossible for them to start, but because they appeal to the tastebuds of many (it's the combination of fat and salt, one reason why potatoes roasted with lamb or chicken are amazing, calories aside) and because they are often eaten under circumstances that lead people to overeat anything--sitting out there in a big bag or bowl making portion size hard to judge. Add to this that they are often eaten on their own, when people are in the mood to snack or hungry, rather than part of a meal, and there's really no mystery at all.the quantity of sugar being consumed.
The question is whether the fact that the average American eats too much sugar means that it's healthier to eliminate "added sugar" (or "sugar" in general, even fruit, as some here have claimed) as opposed to making the occasional chocolate chip cookie. I don't think so, and besides making and sharing cookies has its own benefits.They want their additive laden, highly processed foods full of sugar and salt, and their super sized meals AND they want to look good eating it.
Eh, that's not what I want. Sure, I'd like to eat non-restricted quantities of my favorite foods, not worrying about the calories, on a regular basis, and I'd also like the power to transport myself anywhere just by wanting to, but in fact most of those foods could probably be called "clean" if I were inclined to do so. But the broader point is that saying that you can eat a perfectly healthy diet without cutting out foods that you like does NOT mean that you are planning to eat unlimited quantities of everything or survive on "super sized meals." That's silly. The vast majority of self-proclaimed clean eaters here admit that they really eat mostly "clean" (however they define it) but add in other things. I don't see how that's "clean" under any definition that's been promoted, but more significantly that seems to be exactly the same as how the non clean eaters have described their diets, so maybe the issue is not, in fact, that people want to eat fries 24/7, much as it must be nice to beat up on that strawman.You have folks here who won't eat potatoes because they cause you to gain weight yet they will eat potato chips. Hmm, a whole potato vs potato chips.
I've never seen this. It's silly, obviously. I would generally associate the "potatoes are bad and cause you to gain weight, eliminate them" with the people on this forum who seem to buy into "clean" eating kinds of concepts, since the difference between clean and not clean is whether foods should be eliminated, and also potatoes are often included (mysteriously, IMO) with the bad white foods that must be avoided. Of course that makes no sense, but I also don't see why broccoli stops being healthy when it's frozen, as the anti processed thing would have it.0 -
I don't care if anyone wants to "eat clean", whatever definition you use. Good for you.
I do get upset when someone implies (or directly says) they are healthier than me because they eat clean. Or when they tell others they HAVE to eat clean to be healthy, to lose weight, to get abs, etc.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
[/quote]We know some of these additives are addictive which is why you can't eat just one chip.
I think these kinds of statements are part of why "clean" eating gets flack here. It's the suggestion that some kinds of foods are scary and have power over those who eat them, not because of any particular issues the eater has, but because they are so bad and dangerous.
Except it's a known fact that these foods are created to manipulate our body and brain chemistry to find them most pleasurable. It's also a known fact that these foods are marketed to us to increase consumption in an already over-consuming nation. Are you going to suggest that drugs don't have an addictive nature next because they're just things people are consuming?I don't think so, and besides making and sharing cookies has its own benefits.
Why not make and share something tasty that is healthy? That's in every way better than sharing and making cookies.
I once filled my macros with chocolate chip cookies. They were under my calorie goals and had the right portion of protein/carb/fats. I'd already gotten my micros for the day/week.
In that circumstance, those cookie were the healthiest thing I could have eaten.0 -
Just because something is low in calories/fat doesn't mean it is inherently healthy.
This.
If you mean 300 calories of a sandwhich is "better" for you in the sense that you'll lose weight faster, that is true. Losing weight is all about calories in vs calories out. Overall health is not. You could lose weight on 1200 calories of ice cream a day. Is it healthy? No.
Absolutely agree. A few months ago I was skipping meals and living off of donuts and chocolate milk, probably averaging not much more than 1400 cals/day, but then I had bloodwork done and my doctor told me I was prediabetic. I have my diet under pretty tight control now, and the bloodwork cleared up fine!0 -
I don't care if anyone wants to "eat clean", whatever definition you use. Good for you.
I do get upset when someone implies (or directly says) they are healthier than me because they eat clean. Or when they tell others they HAVE to eat clean to be healthy, to lose weight, to get abs, etc.
I tend to think those who eat clean are healthier than those who don't barring any genetic disorders or pre-existing conditions. There likely are studies that support this but I don't have time to look for them at the moment. As far as implications, on the MFP forums some are jumping to conclusions and assuming things that aren't being said about clean eating. I don't know why they do this but hopefully they are logging the jumping to conclusions as exercise!
The bolded statement is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean clean eaters telling others they (the others) have to eat clean or telling others they (themselves) have to eat clean? If it is the first I can't comment because I don't tell others how to eat and don't particularly care how you or anyone else eats with the exception of food I serve to my family. If it is they (themselves) --> I have to eat clean because it is the healthiest choice for me and will continue to be the healthiest choice for me which means I had to eat clean to lose weight and eat clean to tone and continue to eat clean for my fitness goals. Whether anyone else decides to eat clean, is not my concern.0 -
We know some of these additives are addictive which is why you can't eat just one chip.
I think these kinds of statements are part of why "clean" eating gets flack here. It's the suggestion that some kinds of foods are scary and have power over those who eat them, not because of any particular issues the eater has, but because they are so bad and dangerous. Personally, I don't eat chips, since I don't like them enough to spend the calories (unlike roasted
A couple of years ago, the food industry started using maltodextrin as an additive in potato chips. Do some research on maltodextrin then get back to me how it doesn't cause cravings and increase the desire to eat more in one sitting. This is definitely one food additive that should be avoided! Oh, and the food industry has actually admitted to using food additives with addictive properties. The research is out there.0 -
There's absolutely no evidence that any particular macronutrient ratio is best for overall health either. So if you promote flexible dieting it's completely arbitrary up to the discretion of the implementer. And I'd highly disagree that people who are using flexible dieting are "clean eaters". To me a clean eater consumes only what they feel is healthy while a flexible eater consumes moderate amounts of unhealthy foods believing it won't impact their overall health.
So then why do I think clean eating and flexible eating are so different if they both do get people to actively think about what they eat? Because I'm under the belief that for the majority of people moderation won't work. And statistically speaking the majority of diets are moderate diets and the average dieter fails to maintain weight loss long term.
A couple points.
If one is regularly exercising, just following the basic gov't guidelines, then there is plenty of evidence that a protein intake above the RDA is beneficial (up to about 0.8g/lb LBM). There is also plenty of evidence of a minimum fat intake. The basic flexible "rules" are pretty much based on current scientific consensus when it comes to macros.
I also think to some degree you have to step back and look at the big picture. Eating in moderation, using an app like MFP as a control mechanism, is a really new thing. This was not really possible without significantly more effort more than 5 years ago. You are also talking about a fairly small subset of people with the know how and technology to pull it off nowadays. But these factors are steadily growing; experience begets experience.
You look in the maintaining forum and there's always a thread about if you plan on counting with MFP or something similar forever, many (incl me) say why not; its pathetically easy. 5 years ago to even consider this someone would have to be obsessed and neurotic. Nowadays its becoming so easy it can be seen as a personal hygiene task like flossing. How much easier still will the next generation of technology make things. Eventually a critical mass will be reached where consistent effort toward maintaining ones weight will be considered normal and socially expected of everyone; we aren't terribly far from that point in time in western society. The smartphone will eventually transform life far more than the internet did, and this is one of the places it will.
The mythical eat watch of the Hackers Diet, the perfect control mechanism, is within the realm of possibility nowadays.0 -
Because there's no conclusive answer or any universal answer for what people need in a diet except to be making concise health decisions. As long as we can get people to think about what they eat I think we're going in the right direction so clean eating fits the bill.
You could say "eat healthy foods" but healthy is not clearly defined. Is a steak healthy? Are whole grains healthy? Is a cupcake healthy? Depends on who you ask...
You could say "eat non-processed foods" but processed is not clearly defined. Technically anything that's cooked, blended, dried, or preserved is processed. So where is the line between mechanical and chemical processing that makes one food natural and another processed?
There's absolutely no evidence that any particular macronutrient ratio is best for overall health either. So if you promote flexible dieting it's completely arbitrary up to the discretion of the implementer. And I'd highly disagree that people who are using flexible dieting are "clean eaters". To me a clean eater consumes only what they feel is healthy while a flexible eater consumes moderate amounts of unhealthy foods believing it won't impact their overall health.
So then why do I think clean eating and flexible eating are so different if they both do get people to actively think about what they eat? Because I'm under the belief that for the majority of people moderation won't work. And statistically speaking the majority of diets are moderate diets and the average dieter fails to maintain weight loss long term.
You misunderstood my stance. I think terms like...
healthy
junk
clean/dirty
processed
etc...
Is a silly way to think of specific food items...
a) You readily admit most of these terms are indefinable
b) No single food item eaten sparingly will cause a person to have nutrient deficiencies
c) No single food item eaten sparingly will directly lead to disease or endanger health
d) ANY food items eaten to caloric excess will cause bodyfat gain
So IMO it is a wasted effort to demonize single food items when the overall diet is a far better barometer of a persons health and body composition.
I also think promoting a weird relationship with food in which people have to fear the "dirty" things is potentially problematic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
The study found that individuals who engage in rigid dieting strategies reported symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and excessive concern with body size/shape. In contrast, flexible dieting strategies were not highly associated with BMI, eating disorder symptoms, mood disturbances, or concerns with body size. Since this was a cross sectional study, causality of eating disorder symptoms could not be addressed. These findings replicate and extend the findings of earlier studies. These findings suggest that rigid dieting strategies, but not flexible dieting strategies, are associated with eating disorder symptoms and higher BMI in nonobese women.
Notes: questionnaire data that only shows a correlation but certainly an area I expect to see some better studies about in the future.
Lastly, I support flexible dieting because most clean eaters qualify their clean eating with "well I eat clean but... I have the odd beer still" or 'I eat mostly clean" or "I eat 80% clean" or "I eat mostly clean but have a cheat meal". If someone is one of those clean eaters, then in reality they are simply a flexible dieter.
I think it is far more valuable to teach people - hit your micro nutrients, set your macros for your personal goals (so easy to do these days), and eat 80%-90% whole foods and do whatever the hell you want with the rest of the calories because it won't hurt you.
People need to stop fearing food - it's becoming a serious issue - especially with young men in the fitness community.
I will bow out of this discussion now, I don't want to come off like a bullly/hater/a-hole. Plus anything else I say will just be this same post reworded or backed up with more links. Aint nobody got the time for that.0 -
There's absolutely no evidence that any particular macronutrient ratio is best for overall health either. So if you promote flexible dieting it's completely arbitrary up to the discretion of the implementer. And I'd highly disagree that people who are using flexible dieting are "clean eaters". To me a clean eater consumes only what they feel is healthy while a flexible eater consumes moderate amounts of unhealthy foods believing it won't impact their overall health.
So then why do I think clean eating and flexible eating are so different if they both do get people to actively think about what they eat? Because I'm under the belief that for the majority of people moderation won't work. And statistically speaking the majority of diets are moderate diets and the average dieter fails to maintain weight loss long term.
A couple points.
If one is regularly exercising, just following the basic gov't guidelines, then there is plenty of evidence that a protein intake above the RDA is beneficial (up to about 0.8g/lb LBM). There is also plenty of evidence of a minimum fat intake. The basic flexible "rules" are pretty much based on current scientific consensus when it comes to macros.
I also think to some degree you have to step back and look at the big picture. Eating in moderation, using an app like MFP as a control mechanism, is a really new thing. This was not really possible without significantly more effort more than 5 years ago. You are also talking about a fairly small subset of people with the know how and technology to pull it off nowadays. But these factors are steadily growing; experience begets experience.
You look in the maintaining forum and there's always a thread about if you plan on counting with MFP or something similar forever, many (incl me) say why not; its pathetically easy. 5 years ago to even consider this someone would have to be obsessed and neurotic. Nowadays its becoming so easy it can be seen as a personal hygiene task like flossing. How much easier still will the next generation of technology make things. Eventually a critical mass will be reached where consistent effort toward maintaining ones weight will be considered normal and socially expected of everyone; we aren't terribly far from that point in time in western society. The smartphone will eventually transform life far more than the internet did, and this is one of the places it will.
The mythical eat watch of the Hackers Diet, the perfect control mechanism, is within the realm of possibility nowadays.
Applause!
I've said this for a couple of years now. Also, the bodymedia devices provide a level of feedback that is both truly motivational and really valuable.0 -
There's absolutely no evidence that any particular macronutrient ratio is best for overall health either. So if you promote flexible dieting it's completely arbitrary up to the discretion of the implementer. And I'd highly disagree that people who are using flexible dieting are "clean eaters". To me a clean eater consumes only what they feel is healthy while a flexible eater consumes moderate amounts of unhealthy foods believing it won't impact their overall health.
So then why do I think clean eating and flexible eating are so different if they both do get people to actively think about what they eat? Because I'm under the belief that for the majority of people moderation won't work. And statistically speaking the majority of diets are moderate diets and the average dieter fails to maintain weight loss long term.
A couple points.
If one is regularly exercising, just following the basic gov't guidelines, then there is plenty of evidence that a protein intake above the RDA is beneficial (up to about 0.8g/lb LBM). There is also plenty of evidence of a minimum fat intake. The basic flexible "rules" are pretty much based on current scientific consensus when it comes to macros.
I also think to some degree you have to step back and look at the big picture. Eating in moderation, using an app like MFP as a control mechanism, is a really new thing. This was not really possible without significantly more effort more than 5 years ago. You are also talking about a fairly small subset of people with the know how and technology to pull it off nowadays. But these factors are steadily growing; experience begets experience.
You look in the maintaining forum and there's always a thread about if you plan on counting with MFP or something similar forever, many (incl me) say why not; its pathetically easy. 5 years ago to even consider this someone would have to be obsessed and neurotic. Nowadays its becoming so easy it can be seen as a personal hygiene task like flossing. How much easier still will the next generation of technology make things. Eventually a critical mass will be reached where consistent effort toward maintaining ones weight will be considered normal and socially expected of everyone; we aren't terribly far from that point in time in western society. The smartphone will eventually transform life far more than the internet did, and this is one of the places it will.
The mythical eat watch of the Hackers Diet, the perfect control mechanism, is within the realm of possibility nowadays.
I agree! The apps are getting even easier to use too. There's one that takes a picture of your meal then calculates the calories. At the moment, this app is not as accurate as using MFP or similar database but with a bit of refinement, it really is going to be as easy as taking a picture of your meal. Smartphone apps are also making it quite easy to improve fitness with numerous fitness apps like Hit5, Sworkit, Runtastic and similar. Technology is definitely making things a lot easier!0 -
The value of "clean eating" depends on what you consider clean. My version of clean eating involves eating foods made from ingredients that are there for my nutritional benefit rather than something concocted by a chemist to increase profitability by preserving the product longer. I look for minimally added ingredients or for added ingredients that make it better for my health, not to prolong its shelf-life, make it a prettier color, more addictive, etc.0
-
Back in the day, I could lose 5 lbs. binge drinking all night. And even now I have occasionally lost weight on days that I had pizza and beer. But for ME, my best results have been by having an Alkaline PH from eating "clean" mostly vegetarian. But I am middle aged now and had suffered from gout attacks for years do to an acidic PH balance. When I'm alkaline the weight drops off almost alarmingly fast. I lost 10 lbs in my first week before I even started MFP, unfortunately that weight doesn't show on my MFP ticker.
I'm really confused. All humans have alkaline Ph blood and acidic skin. If that is not true, we are having a terrible condition.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Hi all,
How important is it to eat "clean"?! Surely eating a low fat sandwich of say 300 calories is better than eating a "clean" meal of double that?! Does it really matter WHAT you eat? I'm not saying i want to eat complete junk...I don't. But sometimes i eat on the go and i just grab the healthiest option which may not be considered "clean" but is lower in calories than a cleaner option...
Thanks! xxx
Go read nutrition articles before posting again, please.
Get off your high horse love - these forums are meant for asking questions!! Thank you everyone else for your input xxx0 -
Hi all,
How important is it to eat "clean"?! Surely eating a low fat sandwich of say 300 calories is better than eating a "clean" meal of double that?! Does it really matter WHAT you eat? I'm not saying i want to eat complete junk...I don't. But sometimes i eat on the go and i just grab the healthiest option which may not be considered "clean" but is lower in calories than a cleaner option...
Thanks! xxx
Go read nutrition articles before posting again, please.
Get off your high horse love - these forums are meant for asking questions!! Thank you everyone else for your input xxx
I don't see them as being on a high horse, they are advising (in case you haven't done any research) to do some research on the subject and find out what you are really getting into and what it means to you.
To one paleo person in another thread, they were going to eat paleo and then have treat days...so that's not really paleo...so it's really up to you to decide how important eating clean is. Everyone on the forums is going to have a different stance, some will be 50/50, some will say no, some will say yes. Everyone is different in what they think is important to their weight loss goals.
With all that said, good luck0 -
It's true that blood PH is alkaline 7.35 and the body will struggle to maintain that level by any means possible in order to live. If a body is not getting enough Alkaline foods to buffer the acid foods, and acids formed by metabolism it will rob the alkaline minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium) from your bones and teeth in order to maintain blood PH of 7.35-7.45. The human body will also eliminate excess acid (Due to poor diet) if it is struggling to survive, by storing acid in organ tissue and fat. A slight variation in blood PH will send a person into a coma then death. I am however talking about testing my urine PH or saliva as an indicator of overall health. If the urine is acidic (use PH test strips, 7-7.25 is optimal) too much acid forming foods are being consumed, and not enough Alkaline mineral containing foods (vegetables mainly) are being consumed. That is why we say PH balance, we need a balance of acid and alkaline. The body does use acid for stomach digestion and for the skin as you mentioned. The problem is our modern American diet is unbalanced and extremely acidic. If you look at my original state though I said "FOR ME my best results...when Alkaline" meaning weight loss. I should have been more specific about my alkaline PH balance being urine or saliva and not the blood. Remember I'm talking about my results, and not trying to convert anyone HERE with sound advice, I've seen that healthy eaters are shunned on MFP.Back in the day, I could lose 5 lbs. binge drinking all night. And even now I have occasionally lost weight on days that I had pizza and beer. But for ME, my best results have been by having an Alkaline PH from eating "clean" mostly vegetarian. But I am middle aged now and had suffered from gout attacks for years do to an acidic PH balance. When I'm alkaline the weight drops off almost alarmingly fast. I lost 10 lbs in my first week before I even started MFP, unfortunately that weight doesn't show on my MFP ticker.
I'm really confused. All humans have alkaline Ph blood and acidic skin. If that is not true, we are having a terrible condition.0 -
When it comes to health technology doesn't necessarily beget results. Didn't the access and availability of gyms make training easier? Didn't treadmills make being able to run more convenient? Hasn't the internet made learning how to do any free weight exercise easy? Yet people still avoid free weights, activity isn't increasing, and obesity still is increasing. Go figure...
Interestingly, there is one demographic group that is seeing the rate of obesity decline.
18-29 year olds
They've always been low, but are tracking even lower.
According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds):
2008 - 17.4
2009 - 18.3
2010 - 18.1
2011 - 17.3
2012 - 17.2
2013 - 17.2
Interestingly, this would also be the most tech-savvy group that is much further ahead of the general population in terms of smartphone adoption and useage.
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
2008 - 21.1
2009 - 21.4
2010 - 21.6
2011 - 20.9
2012 - 21.2
2013 - 22.0
Who would also be more likely to be tech savvy and adopters than the general population.
I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.0 -
When it comes to health technology doesn't necessarily beget results. Didn't the access and availability of gyms make training easier? Didn't treadmills make being able to run more convenient? Hasn't the internet made learning how to do any free weight exercise easy? Yet people still avoid free weights, activity isn't increasing, and obesity still is increasing. Go figure...
Interestingly, there is one demographic group that is seeing the rate of obesity decline.
18-29 year olds
They've always been low, but are tracking even lower.
According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds):
2008 - 17.4
2009 - 18.3
2010 - 18.1
2011 - 17.3
2012 - 17.2
2013 - 17.2
Interestingly, this would also be the most tech-savvy group that is much further ahead of the general population in terms of smartphone adoption and useage.
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
2008 - 21.1
2009 - 21.4
2010 - 21.6
2011 - 20.9
2012 - 21.2
2013 - 22.0
Who would also be more likely to be tech savvy and adopters than the general population.
I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.
There are other factors besides being tech savvy for both groups. Many 18 to 29 year old adults are just starting their independent journey through life. They are testing ideals so may be very health conscious which reflects in their weight. They may be in university and for those just entering careers at about age 24, image plays a huge role. This age group likely aren't parents so have more time to spend on themselves and are more active in general. In the income bracket, those with >90K/year have more disposable income. They can easily afford to shop at health food stores, buy organic, buy gym memberships and/or the services of a personal trainer, and home gym equipment. Thus, I don't feel the lower obesity rate in either group can be attributed to being tech savvy alone.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Didn't treadmills make being able to run more convenient?
<snicker>
No0 -
According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds)
...
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
1. A gallup poll is going to have much more than a 1% margin of error so you can hardly consider that data to be showing a trend. Even NHANES shows some small blips here and there.
2. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest rates of adulthood obesity. Is this the most tech savvy group then? Of course not, and tech savvy doesn't have anything to do with the 18 - 29 year old obesity rates either. The lower in age you are the less time you have to build up obesity which is why people below 50 have lower rates of obesity. The impact of early death is why obesity rates start to level off in the 50's because more people are dying from obesity related diseases than becoming obese. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest because the largest percentage of obese people died off before that age bracket.
3. If you didn't know education and wealth are very tightly couple with obesity. No one who is wealthy lives in a food desert for example. It also has a lot to do about affording medical services, education, and overall well being. Again nothing to do with tech savvy.
4. All of these trends have been apparent for the last 30 years not just since MFP and other advancements in tech.I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.
So you don't see how having 1 gym 15 miles away is not as convenient as 10 gyms to pick from within 5 miles? Seeing how many gyms offer $10 monthly memberships (in America anyway) it's far from out of reach of the majority of the population.
You still need a credit card.
However, to your point, MFP requires a computer or decent phone and the tracking devices are still expensive.
I know a number of people who have gotten to their goal weight and just can't be bothered to track daily.0 -
According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds)
...
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
1. A gallup poll is going to have much more than a 1% margin of error so you can hardly consider that data to be showing a trend. Even NHANES shows some small blips here and there.
2. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest rates of adulthood obesity. Is this the most tech savvy group then? Of course not, and tech savvy doesn't have anything to do with the 18 - 29 year old obesity rates either. The lower in age you are the less time you have to build up obesity which is why people below 50 have lower rates of obesity. The impact of early death is why obesity rates start to level off in the 50's because more people are dying from obesity related diseases than becoming obese. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest because the largest percentage of obese people died off before that age bracket.
3. If you didn't know education and wealth are very tightly couple with obesity. No one who is wealthy lives in a food desert for example. It also has a lot to do about affording medical services, education, and overall well being. Again nothing to do with tech savvy.
4. All of these trends have been apparent for the last 30 years not just since MFP and other advancements in tech.I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.
So you don't see how having 1 gym 15 miles away is not as convenient as 10 gyms to pick from within 5 miles? Seeing how many gyms offer $10 monthly memberships (in America anyway) it's far from out of reach of the majority of the population.
Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).
Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.0 -
According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds)
...
Another group that is fairly stable are the well off (income >90K/yr)
1. A gallup poll is going to have much more than a 1% margin of error so you can hardly consider that data to be showing a trend. Even NHANES shows some small blips here and there.
2. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest rates of adulthood obesity. Is this the most tech savvy group then? Of course not, and tech savvy doesn't have anything to do with the 18 - 29 year old obesity rates either. The lower in age you are the less time you have to build up obesity which is why people below 50 have lower rates of obesity. The impact of early death is why obesity rates start to level off in the 50's because more people are dying from obesity related diseases than becoming obese. The 70 - 90 year olds have the lowest because the largest percentage of obese people died off before that age bracket.
3. If you didn't know education and wealth are very tightly couple with obesity. No one who is wealthy lives in a food desert for example. It also has a lot to do about affording medical services, education, and overall well being. Again nothing to do with tech savvy.
4. All of these trends have been apparent for the last 30 years not just since MFP and other advancements in tech.I really don't see how you would think gyms make training easier. They are inconvenient and expensive. Maybe if it was normal for the gov't to provide them free of charge for the public a la parks, but that is not the case at all. Treadmills take up a ton of space and are expensive, a fairly small subset of the population can both afford one and house one.
So you don't see how having 1 gym 15 miles away is not as convenient as 10 gyms to pick from within 5 miles? Seeing how many gyms offer $10 monthly memberships (in America anyway) it's far from out of reach of the majority of the population.
Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups).
Very few gyms are that cheap. Most are a good bit more. Heck a Crossfit membership can run $200+ per month. They are every bit as expensive in time as they are in $$. And if you have kids.... the number of gyms that offer daycare is very small. The private for profit gym industry is a horrendous way to promote fitness for the general population. It is in fact hard to think of something that would actually be worse.
Especially when you factor in the ineffectiveness of the workouts and diet plans that are promoted there.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why not make and share something tasty that is healthy? That's in every way better than sharing and making cookies.
I do that too, but people got irritated the last time I brought gazpacho to our Christmas cookie exchange. Didn't fit in their bags very well.
Broader point is that eating an overall healthy diet with occasional cookies is not going to leave you unhealthy as compared to a "clean" diet that cuts out all added sugar or grains or whatever people have decided are unclean foods. And for many the occasional cookies might make the diet more sustainable--not in the least because you can join in Christmas cookie exchanges or eat a piece of grandma's apple pie--and there are probably unhealthy elements to the impulse to declare particular foods that you like "unclean" or off-limits. IMO, it's essentially a way of trying to combat one's attraction to certain foods by telling yourself they are really disgusting and shameful, and that messes some people up when they perceive that they are wanting to eat (or eat) foods that they have convinced themselves are disgusting. Indeed, one could probably make a comparison to some kinds of attitudes toward sex, but that's probably not going to make the discussion less controversial. ;-)0 -
Why not make and share something tasty that is healthy? That's in every way better than sharing and making cookies.
I do that too, but people got irritated the last time I brought gazpacho to our Christmas cookie exchange. Didn't fit in their bags very well.
Broader point is that eating an overall healthy diet with occasional cookies is not going to leave you unhealthy as compared to a "clean" diet that cuts out all added sugar or grains or whatever people have decided are unclean foods. And for many the occasional cookies might make the diet more sustainable--not in the least because you can join in Christmas cookie exchanges or eat a piece of grandma's apple pie--and there are probably unhealthy elements to the impulse to declare particular foods that you like "unclean" or off-limits. IMO, it's essentially a way of trying to combat one's attraction to certain foods by telling yourself they are really disgusting and shameful, and that messes some people up when they perceive that they are wanting to eat (or eat) foods that they have convinced themselves are disgusting. Indeed, one could probably make a comparison to some kinds of attitudes toward sex, but that's probably not going to make the discussion less controversial. ;-)
In summary: It's impossible to fall off the wagon when there is no wagon.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions