Low(er) Carb Real Food
Options
Replies
-
OP... you do you... but you aren't going to catch much love around here...0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it just me, or does it seem like the people with the largest number of posts are the biggest haters???
the biggest haters of?!?
apparently it is hating to question why someone would classify other people's eating as "fake food" and to inject a little common sense into the discussion. ..
Let's be honest, it really started when someone comes in and says "No, don't do that! Do it my way!" which happens in every.single. low carb post. And people think those on Atkins/low carb diets are preachy....
I never said anything about low carb...
I objected to calling foods "fake", as if the rest of us are somehow eating fake foods, and those eating "real" foods are somehow superior.
Also, I objected to removing "added" sugar as added sugar and natural sugar are the same..
Btw, added sugar and natural sugars are both sugars, but they are NOT the same. They are of different compositions and processed by the body differently.
The primary function of carbohydrates is to provide energy for the body, especially the brain and the nervous system. An enzyme called amylase helps break down carbohydrates into glucose (blood sugar), which is used for energy by the body...
Carbohydrates are classified as simple or complex. The classification depends on the chemical structure of the food, and how quickly the sugar is digested and absorbed. Simple carbohydrates have one (single) or two (double) sugars. Complex carbohydrates have three or more sugars.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002469.htm
And no one in this thread has insinuated that anyone thinks "real food" and those who follow that philosophy are really "superior" to anyone else. You and one other guy have injected that into the conversation. Saying that someone has said that, doesn't make it so.
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Real food? Is this opposed to pretend food?
By real food, I mean largely unprocessed. No seed oils high in omega 6 fatty acids. Nothing what I would term "hyperpalatable." Nothing with added sugar, HFCS, artificial sweeteners, chemicals, preservatives, food dyes. Real grass-fed dairy, meat, pastured eggs.
Of course, all of that is an ideal situation, but it is a goal.
If I am going to cheat, it is going to homemade with real ingredients! Take a look at processed cookies on the shelf and see if you can find a single package without soybean oil instead of real butter.
I'm super excited for the holidays... I'm already planning some homemade egg nog!
hmmm so you are saying the rest of us eat "fake" food…?
You do realize that all food has chemicals in it, right?
oh and there is no different between "added" sugar and "natural" sugar, they are all the same and treated as your body as such….
LOL, yes, I'm aware of how the body reacts to sugar, yes, I know all food has "chemicals" in it
If you're not sure what I mean by real food, you are welcome to ask....
per my original post, read *open-minded* as code for humble, critical-thinking, not assuming you know it all, not afraid to go against the grain (no pun intended)...
yes, please define "real" food …?
If you know that all sugar is treated the same by your body, then you are you advocating avoiding "added" sugar….scottacular wrote: »I cringe when people use terms like 'real food' like they're better than other people who choose to eat food that doesn't fit into their limited range of what they deem to be acceptable. There are of course food types that are more nutritious than others, but there is no such thing as fake food. If you can eat it, it's 100% real. Demonising certain foods just isn't healthy. And no food is bad for you unless you eat too much of it.
Ok, let me get this straight, "if you can eat it, it's real?"
Even if it an entirely new chemical compound, created only by humans, with proven, severe effects on health (increased risk for cardiovascular and metabolic disease)? A compound found in a majority of processed foods for decades? (Lots and lots of us ate it and continue to eat it.... and a lot of it).
I'm talking about trans fats. They are a by-product of an industrial process that adds hydrogen to vegetable oil in order to make it solid at room temperature and more shelf stable. NOW we know that they are absolutely horrible for you. NOW the data is coming out, the FDA is slowly taking steps to reduce them... slowly...
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.htm
You say, "no food is bad for you unless you eat too much of it"? Actually, trans fat is case where actually there is NO recommended daily limit. The answer is just ZERO.
This is just one example of the difference between real and processed foods. I never used the term "fake." It popped into your head when you read "real." But yeah, when I see that "blueberries" in muffins are made of " sugar, corn syrup, starch, hydrogenated oil, artificial flavors, artificial food dye blue No. 2 and red No. 40," I definitely think "fake."
While the term "real food" might make you cringe... I cringe the more I learn about the food industry's cheap tactics and irresponsibility. Chemicals are tested and synthesized by industry, intensifying flavors from nature, with the exact purpose of making it so intense that you crave it.
Personally, I would rather cut out the lab-created, chemical flavors and enjoy the nuances of nature. Taste an apple and actually enjoy its intense sweetness. It takes time to adjust the palate, but now I'm at the point where asparagus actually does seem to have overtones reminiscent of birthday cake LOL
"Even if it an entirely new chemical compound, created only by humans, with proven, severe effects on health (increased risk for cardiovascular and metabolic disease)? A compound found in a majority of processed foods for decades? (Lots and lots of us ate it and continue to eat it.... and a lot of it).
I'm talking about trans fats. They are a by-product of an industrial process that adds hydrogen to vegetable oil in order to make it solid at room temperature and more shelf stable. NOW we know that they are absolutely horrible for you. NOW the data is coming out, the FDA is slowly taking steps to reduce them... slowly..."
Such ignorance. What are CLA and TVA and where are they found?
IF they are animal-sourced, they are safe. Sadly, bro, the ones in processed foods are not.
You can throw around names like bro, but I'm a little more informed then you are.
"I'm talking about trans fats. They are a by-product of an industrial process that adds hydrogen to vegetable oil in order to make it solid at room temperature and more shelf stable."
also here's another read
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009434
ok.... a quantitative review from 2010 that seems to suggest that animal trans fats have similar (detrimental) effects on the lipid profile.... and this is supposed to tell me?
You do realize that this still means they're bad for you? So...
Oh no I had no idea, or maybe I posted that in response to this statement from you?
"IF they are animal-sourced, they are safe. Sadly, bro, the ones in processed foods are not."
Dude, you fished out one quantitative review from 2010 from the Netherlands that even stated that it was questioning THE general consesus that animal trans fats not as harmful as "fake" trans fats.
And reality check... only you injected the words "fake" and "superior" into this conversation.
You're hostile, even if only mildly so... give yourself and correspondingly everyone else a break. CHILL
You may not have used the word fake, but by using the word "real" you implied there were unreal or fake foods.
And the superior injection comes from many a folk you give the air of ignorance when it comes to low carb/keto diets.
I find you more hostile Acg67.
But what if the person assumes arrogance on the part of a "kind" of individual as a knee-jerk, but it isn't really there.
For example, people often always read a person's responses as "angry." Like mine. I'm very seldom ever angry. I'm often amused, incredulous, or annoyed. But I can be bothered to be angry. Too much effort. What I am is blunt sometimes.
Passionate can be arrogant, but it isn't always arrogant. Keto/low-carbers, like people on other eating plans, can be very passionate. But they usually aren't arrogant.
But words like "superior," if they are used, have a certain connotation. Fake also has a negative connotation. But just because they call something "fake", does not mean the person is directing the negativity at a group of people. Fake food, is processed food to some people, and they are allowed to be discerning in what they foods they put in their body, but that choice is not a judgment on someone else.
If you go into it assuming that everything is a judgment upon you, you won't get along with anyone very well.
So is it intention, or is it perception? I think that's a valid question. Self-reflection is good from time to time.0 -
Whose angry?
something as silly as an interent forum will not make me angry. I find it amusing.0 -
baconslave wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Real food? Is this opposed to pretend food?
By real food, I mean largely unprocessed. No seed oils high in omega 6 fatty acids. Nothing what I would term "hyperpalatable." Nothing with added sugar, HFCS, artificial sweeteners, chemicals, preservatives, food dyes. Real grass-fed dairy, meat, pastured eggs.
Of course, all of that is an ideal situation, but it is a goal.
If I am going to cheat, it is going to homemade with real ingredients! Take a look at processed cookies on the shelf and see if you can find a single package without soybean oil instead of real butter.
I'm super excited for the holidays... I'm already planning some homemade egg nog!
hmmm so you are saying the rest of us eat "fake" food…?
You do realize that all food has chemicals in it, right?
oh and there is no different between "added" sugar and "natural" sugar, they are all the same and treated as your body as such….
LOL, yes, I'm aware of how the body reacts to sugar, yes, I know all food has "chemicals" in it
If you're not sure what I mean by real food, you are welcome to ask....
per my original post, read *open-minded* as code for humble, critical-thinking, not assuming you know it all, not afraid to go against the grain (no pun intended)...
yes, please define "real" food …?
If you know that all sugar is treated the same by your body, then you are you advocating avoiding "added" sugar….scottacular wrote: »I cringe when people use terms like 'real food' like they're better than other people who choose to eat food that doesn't fit into their limited range of what they deem to be acceptable. There are of course food types that are more nutritious than others, but there is no such thing as fake food. If you can eat it, it's 100% real. Demonising certain foods just isn't healthy. And no food is bad for you unless you eat too much of it.
Ok, let me get this straight, "if you can eat it, it's real?"
Even if it an entirely new chemical compound, created only by humans, with proven, severe effects on health (increased risk for cardiovascular and metabolic disease)? A compound found in a majority of processed foods for decades? (Lots and lots of us ate it and continue to eat it.... and a lot of it).
I'm talking about trans fats. They are a by-product of an industrial process that adds hydrogen to vegetable oil in order to make it solid at room temperature and more shelf stable. NOW we know that they are absolutely horrible for you. NOW the data is coming out, the FDA is slowly taking steps to reduce them... slowly...
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.htm
You say, "no food is bad for you unless you eat too much of it"? Actually, trans fat is case where actually there is NO recommended daily limit. The answer is just ZERO.
This is just one example of the difference between real and processed foods. I never used the term "fake." It popped into your head when you read "real." But yeah, when I see that "blueberries" in muffins are made of " sugar, corn syrup, starch, hydrogenated oil, artificial flavors, artificial food dye blue No. 2 and red No. 40," I definitely think "fake."
While the term "real food" might make you cringe... I cringe the more I learn about the food industry's cheap tactics and irresponsibility. Chemicals are tested and synthesized by industry, intensifying flavors from nature, with the exact purpose of making it so intense that you crave it.
Personally, I would rather cut out the lab-created, chemical flavors and enjoy the nuances of nature. Taste an apple and actually enjoy its intense sweetness. It takes time to adjust the palate, but now I'm at the point where asparagus actually does seem to have overtones reminiscent of birthday cake LOL
"Even if it an entirely new chemical compound, created only by humans, with proven, severe effects on health (increased risk for cardiovascular and metabolic disease)? A compound found in a majority of processed foods for decades? (Lots and lots of us ate it and continue to eat it.... and a lot of it).
I'm talking about trans fats. They are a by-product of an industrial process that adds hydrogen to vegetable oil in order to make it solid at room temperature and more shelf stable. NOW we know that they are absolutely horrible for you. NOW the data is coming out, the FDA is slowly taking steps to reduce them... slowly..."
Such ignorance. What are CLA and TVA and where are they found?
IF they are animal-sourced, they are safe. Sadly, bro, the ones in processed foods are not.
You can throw around names like bro, but I'm a little more informed then you are.
"I'm talking about trans fats. They are a by-product of an industrial process that adds hydrogen to vegetable oil in order to make it solid at room temperature and more shelf stable."
also here's another read
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009434
ok.... a quantitative review from 2010 that seems to suggest that animal trans fats have similar (detrimental) effects on the lipid profile.... and this is supposed to tell me?
You do realize that this still means they're bad for you? So...
Oh no I had no idea, or maybe I posted that in response to this statement from you?
"IF they are animal-sourced, they are safe. Sadly, bro, the ones in processed foods are not."
Dude, you fished out one quantitative review from 2010 from the Netherlands that even stated that it was questioning THE general consesus that animal trans fats not as harmful as "fake" trans fats.
And reality check... only you injected the words "fake" and "superior" into this conversation.
You're hostile, even if only mildly so... give yourself and correspondingly everyone else a break. CHILL
You may not have used the word fake, but by using the word "real" you implied there were unreal or fake foods.
And the superior injection comes from many a folk you give the air of ignorance when it comes to low carb/keto diets.
I find you more hostile Acg67.
But what if the person assumes arrogance on the part of a "kind" of individual as a knee-jerk, but it isn't really there.
For example, people often always read a person's responses as "angry." Like mine. I'm very seldom ever angry. I'm often amused, incredulous, or annoyed. But I can be bothered to be angry. Too much effort. What I am is blunt sometimes.
Passionate can be arrogant, but it isn't always arrogant. Keto/low-carbers, like people on other eating plans, can be very passionate. But they usually aren't arrogant.
But words like "superior," if they are used, have a certain connotation. Fake also has a negative connotation. But just because they call something "fake", does not mean the person is directing the negativity at a group of people. Fake food, is processed food to some people, and they are allowed to be discerning in what they foods they put in their body, but that choice is not a judgment on someone else.
If you go into it assuming that everything is a judgment upon you, you won't get along with anyone very well.
So is it intention, or is it perception? I think that's a valid question. Self-reflection is good from time to time.
if someone said low carb was "fake food" how would you take it?
and sugar is sugar..at the molecular level it is all the same.0 -
Whose angry?
something as silly as an interent forum will not make me angry. I find it amusing.
Beats me.
What I'm saying that words don't come across as angry, hostile, or arrogant to a person unless 1)multiple words with those connotations are used or 2)someone has already established a negative view of that person or the group that person identifies with.
You may resume your amusement.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it just me, or does it seem like the people with the largest number of posts are the biggest haters???
the biggest haters of?!?
apparently it is hating to question why someone would classify other people's eating as "fake food" and to inject a little common sense into the discussion. ..
Let's be honest, it really started when someone comes in and says "No, don't do that! Do it my way!" which happens in every.single. low carb post. And people think those on Atkins/low carb diets are preachy....
I never said anything about low carb...
I objected to calling foods "fake", as if the rest of us are somehow eating fake foods, and those eating "real" foods are somehow superior.
Also, I objected to removing "added" sugar as added sugar and natural sugar are the same..
Btw, added sugar and natural sugars are both sugars, but they are NOT the same. They are of different compositions and processed by the body differently.
The primary function of carbohydrates is to provide energy for the body, especially the brain and the nervous system. An enzyme called amylase helps break down carbohydrates into glucose (blood sugar), which is used for energy by the body...
Carbohydrates are classified as simple or complex. The classification depends on the chemical structure of the food, and how quickly the sugar is digested and absorbed. Simple carbohydrates have one (single) or two (double) sugars. Complex carbohydrates have three or more sugars.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002469.htm
And no one in this thread has insinuated that anyone thinks "real food" and those who follow that philosophy are really "superior" to anyone else. You and one other guy have injected that into the conversation. Saying that someone has said that, doesn't make it so.
Please don't tell me you actually believe that all natural sugars are complex carbohydrates...0 -
I've lost 101 pounds on a low(er) carb diet. I stick to a 7 protein to 15 carb ratio that doesn't exceed 30 at any meal.
I'd LOVE to have friends add me who are also low(er) carb. It's hard coming up with food ideas when you've been at it for so long!0 -
baconslave wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Is it just me, or does it seem like the people with the largest number of posts are the biggest haters???
the biggest haters of?!?
apparently it is hating to question why someone would classify other people's eating as "fake food" and to inject a little common sense into the discussion. ..
Let's be honest, it really started when someone comes in and says "No, don't do that! Do it my way!" which happens in every.single. low carb post. And people think those on Atkins/low carb diets are preachy....
I never said anything about low carb...
I objected to calling foods "fake", as if the rest of us are somehow eating fake foods, and those eating "real" foods are somehow superior.
Also, I objected to removing "added" sugar as added sugar and natural sugar are the same..
Btw, added sugar and natural sugars are both sugars, but they are NOT the same. They are of different compositions and processed by the body differently.
The primary function of carbohydrates is to provide energy for the body, especially the brain and the nervous system. An enzyme called amylase helps break down carbohydrates into glucose (blood sugar), which is used for energy by the body...
Carbohydrates are classified as simple or complex. The classification depends on the chemical structure of the food, and how quickly the sugar is digested and absorbed. Simple carbohydrates have one (single) or two (double) sugars. Complex carbohydrates have three or more sugars.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002469.htm
And no one in this thread has insinuated that anyone thinks "real food" and those who follow that philosophy are really "superior" to anyone else. You and one other guy have injected that into the conversation. Saying that someone has said that, doesn't make it so.
Please don't tell me you actually believe that all natural sugars are complex carbohydrates...
???Why would I believe something so ridiculous? Some are simple carbohydrates, but not all. Some are complex but not all. Science is science.0 -
if someone said low carb was "fake food" how would you take it?
and sugar is sugar..at the molecular level it is all the same.
I wouldn't give a rat's *kitten*. I'm happy with my plan and secure in the belief that I'm doing what's right for me. No worries.
The nature of keto is such that it is mostly whole foods, but even they have been "processed" in a manner of speaking. Cheese, meat, veggies, have been "tampered with" in some way, if you look at it the right way. I'm healthy and happy so I don't care how someone else wants to label it. And I'm not going to get upset because someone else believes the food I eat is "some-arbitrary-label."
Carb-heavy foods and I don't mesh. Does that make them evil? Nope. Sugar and I don't mesh. Does that make it inherently evil? Nope. Do I care if someone else eats them with no trouble? Nope.
And yes, at the molecular level, sugar is sugar, that doesn't negate the way the body responds to different combinations of those molecules. And for some people that makes a huge difference, and for others it makes little difference. But it still happens.
0 -
Look girl. Don't go low carb..low fat...low anything......just go calorie deficit....honestly honey it works. I eat everything...just calorie deficit...omg...it works.....trust me....
I wish that truly worked for everyone but I did calorie deficit for 8 months without losing a single pound. I'm talking a docter watched, weighing all my food, and logging everything every day for 8 months diet. I was eating around 1200 calories and should have been losing a pound a week. It wasn't until I removed carbs from my diet (except for vegetables) that I was able to lose weight naturally (i.e. without a doctor prescribed medication) and I've never felt better. I have tons of energy, my skin looks better, my hair looks better, and I no longer feel sick every time I eat. I don't know if I have an allergy or some sort, don't really care enough to get tested since I now know what works for me.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Whose angry?
something as silly as an interent forum will not make me angry. I find it amusing. Beats me.
What I'm saying that words don't come across as angry, hostile, or arrogant to a person unless 1)multiple words with those connotations are used or 2)someone has already established a negative view of that person or the group that person identifies with.
You may resume your amusement.
I just read posts in the forum as my monotone physics teacher back in highschool would.
Also aides to the amusement factor.
0 -
I'd be happy to chat, have more friends. I don't eat much with added sugars. I do eat some grains, but 100% whole grains. I eat low crap and slow carb (but am participating in a low carb challenge as a learning experience). I don't generally count or measure or log my food though.
Basically I try to build a diet around wholesome, whole foods, with an emphasis on nutrient dense vegetables, then meats, legumes, dairy, nuts and seeds, fruit, and then limited whole grains.0 -
That says more about you than it does the OP, actually.scottacular wrote: »I cringe when people use terms like 'real food' like they're better than other people who choose to eat food that doesn't fit into their limited range of what they deem to be acceptable. There are of course food types that are more nutritious than others, but there is no such thing as fake food. If you can eat it, it's 100% real. Demonising certain foods just isn't healthy. And no food is bad for you unless you eat too much of it.
0 -
-
There are a few groups that may interest you, and you'd not have to sift through the nonsense: there's a clean eating group (their name, not mine) there's a "low carber daily forum" that's quite popular as well.aqsylvester wrote: »Looking for open-minded, thoughtful mfp friends who are on a weight loss journey that focuses on mainly eating real, unprocessed, low(er) carb foods... no added sugars or grains! I'm not ketogenic, but I might be on certain days here and there.
And of course, realistically, we all cheat at times.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Whose angry?
something as silly as an interent forum will not make me angry. I find it amusing. Beats me.
What I'm saying that words don't come across as angry, hostile, or arrogant to a person unless 1)multiple words with those connotations are used or 2)someone has already established a negative view of that person or the group that person identifies with.
You may resume your amusement.
I just read posts in the forum as my monotone physics teacher back in highschool would.
Also aides to the amusement factor.
Kind of like Ben Stein from Ferris Bueller...
That's hilarious.
0 -
I was lucky enough to be able to train around 20hrs a week in a former life and so what I ate never really figured much in my decision.
However, now 37, looking to return to fitness I've spent a great deal of time reviewing and reading the options. Vegan, high protein paleo, vegetarian, high carb the lot. Where I've got to is this.
I believe that we are designed as vegetarians that occasionally eat meat. Our diet should consist of lots of great green veg, some fruits, some nuts, smaller portions of meat (and high quality stuff only) and highly limited intake of dairy.
I'm early doors in to this process and making a daily food diary is essential. It's harder to change than we think, but reviewing your daily progress (and failures) really helps.
I'm not anti-carb as it doesn't tell the whole story. I do believe however that we should not consume wheat or refined sugars.
Look forward to the discussion.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That says more about you than it does the OP, actually.scottacular wrote: »I cringe when people use terms like 'real food' like they're better than other people who choose to eat food that doesn't fit into their limited range of what they deem to be acceptable. There are of course food types that are more nutritious than others, but there is no such thing as fake food. If you can eat it, it's 100% real. Demonising certain foods just isn't healthy. And no food is bad for you unless you eat too much of it.
Perfect. That's what I keep trying to say. Why do I have to be so wordy?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions