If eating trash makes us sick, why do we keep eating it?
Options
Replies
-
False...Junk food and sugar are addictive
Truewe're surrounded by it everyday...
Yes it is. Personal accountability. Nothing will change until this truth is accepted...it's honestly not our fault we eat so much of it. The industries don't care about our health, they care about profit.0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »Yeah, I feel like people aren't getting the OP's point. If you don't eat a ton of junk food, feel bad about it, and then go back for more, then this forum isn't for you. If you've got moderation and that's the answer, this forum isn't for you.
OP, I sympathize. I'm like a dog. Or just an idiot. I can overeat repeatedly and, the next night, go back for more and do it to myself again. Same with drinking; apparently, hangovers aren't enough to teach me that lesson. I don't have a great answer other than it tastes great! I also think our bodies are hard-wired to love fat, salt and sugar (I believe that theory, anyway).
So the forum isn't for people who have learned willpower and how to control their urges? Personally I would think those are the people you'd want around on a weight loss forum, not just a bunch of people who lack control of their own actions sympathizing with each other.
All I'm saying is, if you go back to the OP's first post, he's asking a question: why do people overeat when it hurts them and they know it's bad for them. Saying things like "take responsibility for yourself" and "moderation is key" are not answering the question. That is all I am trying to communicate.
So what should be said then?
I guess answers to the question. That's why I said earlier, if this isn't a problem for you, you probably don't have a direct answer to his question. Am I missing something here?
I don't understand why you don't view being accountable for what you eat and finding the willpower to consume tasty foods in moderation to be answers. All you said was you don't have an answer, stuff tastes great, and you struggle with overeating... that's not an answer, but rather just empathy. Even if, as you say, your body is "wired" to enjoy fatty, salty and sweet foods, that doesn't change that your brain is capable of controlling your own actions. There are plenty of things I'd wager you enjoy in life, but yet you exercise some degree of control over your own actions. What you eat is no different. If your problem was spending too much money every month, people would advise that you find a way to stick to a budget. Is that difficult to do? Sure. But is that the answer? Yes, it is. If all they said was "that sucks bro, I spend all my income every month too!" then they aren't providing any sort of a solution.
Because how to get over this problem wasn't the question. It's still not the question. Your answering a question that was never proposed. The question was why do people do it. Why do people text and drive? The answer isn't wait until you get home, the answer it because people are short-sighted or something that directly answers the question. Why do we hurt the people we love? The answer is not, you need to control your emotions, it's something that actually answers the question. When he asks why do people continuously overeat, even with consequences, the answer would have to be about why people do that, not how to overcome that habit.0 -
Derailing threads again huh Jeff-1
-
I once did taste-testing for a company that was hired by food manufacturers. All sorts of products. We testers sat in isolation from each other and were handed foods by people we could not see under a slot in a wall. Instructions were on a sheet of paper. In other words, no outside influence. The foods we tested consisted of everything from cereals, frozen meals, frozen canapes, crackers, salad dressings, to chips and cookies. Each time we were offered slight variations of the same item, asked to compare it with the previous taste and asked to describe the difference. Then we were asked to chose a preference. It was sometimes really hard as there was only a subtle difference between each choice. Mostly the difference was spice/flavor.
I definitely preferred some tastes over others and it wasn't always because one was saltier or sweeter than another. Some of the stuff was awful and I can't imagine it ever went to market.
I'm not convinced that food manufacturers want to "addict" us but they certainly want to please us and make us come back for more because their product tastes good to the average joe. Otherwise they sure waste a lot of money paying testers.
It wasn't always food being tested, btw, but that was the only thing that could be tested in the labs; hair products, dish washing and laundry detergents were taken home and tested over time though multiple uses in multiple situations.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
Why not try to find common ground vs trying to be combative all the time? what exactly do you disagree with from her summarizations?
I'd disagree that it's a fair summarization of what else she's said in this thread. We've gone from KFC is addictive, KFC chicken isn't even chicken, and, even more shocking, KFC is "better tasting than other forms of chicken" (I'm still in disbelief anyone actually thinks KFC is good, much less better than all other chicken)... to "nutrients are important." Of course no one disagree nutrients are important - but I'd certainly disagree that accurately summarizes all the other nonsense in this thread.
I would just say, I agree with those two statements in general but the rest of your jibber jabber doesn't make sense to me
Again...read her posts. The jibber jabber is a summary of the poster you are defending.
I'm not defending her. As I agree(with you) that some of her other comments don't make sense.
But I do agree on what she is attempting to portray as a summarization of her comments.
How about if I just asked you those questions as if I made them? W/O out any context or post history. ie.. solely standing on it's own? Basically I just want to know you stance on micronutrient intake and it's importance to you. I already know where you stand on macros and I agree completely. I'm no longer trying to get you on any common ground with the poster. Thanks.
I am surprised you are not aware of my stance on micros tbh.
In answer to your question - yes, micronutrients are of course important. You should look at the diet as a whole as to whether you are getting a good amount of them. Generally speaking, I advocate eating a good amount of nutrient dense foods. It's fine to eat less nutrient dense foods also. One does not negate the other, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Thank you. I understand that as a ITFYM programmer, you probably adhere to this more than trying to take in a specific xx amount of micros. Which is fine as long as one tries to take in whatever amount of micros they feel is important while maintaining your macro settings.
All while fitting in fried chicken
I keep am eye on my intake - but generally, if you get a good mix of nutrient dense foods, they tend to take care of themselves.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
OK, offer me some grace please, lol... I'm working on how to best articulate my thoughts and views. But I will say that I do believe that most of what is available to us to eat is harmful to our bodies because a) the presence of chemicals and ingredients they contain, we were not made to consume and b) the absence of nutrients that heal and protect (immune system) us leave our guards down. It will do the best job it can with what it's given but sooner or later, it does catch up with you and the results are usually not good.
Maybe my approach was wrong at first but all I'm ultimately after is to offer hope to those who are struggling with these types of foods. There is another way and it's so worth it.. To have been able to say that you lived a life to it's fullest potential and in the process of doing so, you taught your children how to have the same.
I really do mean well. I promise.
0 -
You're wrong, "kelly".
What I eat is my decision.
Industries be damned.
Grow up and stop blaming everyone else for the things you CHOOSE to do.0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »Yeah, I feel like people aren't getting the OP's point. If you don't eat a ton of junk food, feel bad about it, and then go back for more, then this forum isn't for you. If you've got moderation and that's the answer, this forum isn't for you.
OP, I sympathize. I'm like a dog. Or just an idiot. I can overeat repeatedly and, the next night, go back for more and do it to myself again. Same with drinking; apparently, hangovers aren't enough to teach me that lesson. I don't have a great answer other than it tastes great! I also think our bodies are hard-wired to love fat, salt and sugar (I believe that theory, anyway).
So the forum isn't for people who have learned willpower and how to control their urges? Personally I would think those are the people you'd want around on a weight loss forum, not just a bunch of people who lack control of their own actions sympathizing with each other.
All I'm saying is, if you go back to the OP's first post, he's asking a question: why do people overeat when it hurts them and they know it's bad for them. Saying things like "take responsibility for yourself" and "moderation is key" are not answering the question. That is all I am trying to communicate.
So what should be said then?
I guess answers to the question. That's why I said earlier, if this isn't a problem for you, you probably don't have a direct answer to his question. Am I missing something here?
I don't understand why you don't view being accountable for what you eat and finding the willpower to consume tasty foods in moderation to be answers. All you said was you don't have an answer, stuff tastes great, and you struggle with overeating... that's not an answer, but rather just empathy. Even if, as you say, your body is "wired" to enjoy fatty, salty and sweet foods, that doesn't change that your brain is capable of controlling your own actions. There are plenty of things I'd wager you enjoy in life, but yet you exercise some degree of control over your own actions. What you eat is no different. If your problem was spending too much money every month, people would advise that you find a way to stick to a budget. Is that difficult to do? Sure. But is that the answer? Yes, it is. If all they said was "that sucks bro, I spend all my income every month too!" then they aren't providing any sort of a solution.
Because how to get over this problem wasn't the question. It's still not the question. Your answering a question that was never proposed. The question was why do people do it. Why do people text and drive? The answer isn't wait until you get home, the answer it because people are short-sighted or something that directly answers the question. Why do we hurt the people we love? The answer is not, you need to control your emotions, it's something that actually answers the question. When he asks why do people continuously overeat, even with consequences, the answer would have to be about why people do that, not how to overcome that habit.
So the answer is they don't practice moderation! 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.0 -
GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
OK, offer me some grace please, lol... I'm working on how to best articulate my thoughts and views. But I will say that I do believe that most of what is available to us to eat is harmful to our bodies because a) the presence of chemicals and ingredients they contain, we were not made to consume and b) the absence of nutrients that heal and protect (immune system) us leave our guards down. It will do the best job it can with what it's given but sooner or later, it does catch up with you and the results are usually not good.
Maybe my approach was wrong at first but all I'm ultimately after is to offer hope to those who are struggling with these types of foods. There is another way and it's so worth it.. To have been able to say that you lived a life to it's fullest potential and in the process of doing so, you taught your children how to have the same.
I really do mean well. I promise.
You are so, so wrong....still.
-1 -
If you mean well, stop giving advice. It's clear from this very post that you are not educated in physiology, chemistry, or biology. You should take a course or two. Beliefs aren't facts.GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »Sometimes, it's not all about what you can see. Being buff, skinny, fit, obese, chubby doesn't matter. It's about what's happening on the inside of your body that you can't see. Hubby was 140lbs and 5'7" when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 10 years ago. Who knew! Kids are going into emergency rooms getting diagnosed with type 2 but look otherwise perfectly healthy!
Good luck in your ventures, guys! I wish you all the best and I hope the OP will have a chance to read what has been said and try it for himself, if he is truly seeking understanding and health improvement.
That's called *kitten* happens. One of the healthiest guys I've known in my life was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. He was an avid cyclist, big into local produce and health before it became "cool" to buy organic, never smoked, never drank, and yet he died around the age of 50. No matter what you eat or don't eat, there are no guarantees in life. The best you can do is enjoy yourself and try to minimize your risk of illness.
But you're delusional if you think you'll be immune from cancer, diabetes and the like just because you avoid processed foods and gluten. Then again though, some people need to delude themselves because the reality is a bit too harsh, so maybe that's not a bad thing.
People judge but don't want to be judged..
I did not say I think this will make us immune from cancer and disease but what I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases, if you refrain from junk food and feed your body what it should have.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I have had my fair share and then some of loss and reality. Those who can see my heart (thank you for the messages) are what keeps me going. It's not discouraging at all to receive such backlash, it empowers me to go out and learn more in hopes that one day, the world might be a healthier and happier place for us.
For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
Ok, now I'm really done, lol. Have a good day!!
While wikipedia is not the best source to cite, no-one has said that macronutrients are all that matter.
Going to post one of my favorite quotes - from an actual
"Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! - Eric Helms"
There are very few foods that actively are bad for you, medical conditions aside, and in reasonable doses.
Also, please do go out and learn more.
From what I get from her post is that macronutrients isn't everything. There is a very good case to be made from micronutrient dense food intake. Not from a weight/calorie count standpoint but from a health standpoint. If your statement above includes both macro and micro, you two are agreeing more than disagreeing.
My point was, no-one said it was. I am not agreeing with her at all however on most of her points. She seems to think that non-nutrient foods are toxic or something. They are not. She also seems to think that fast food has no nutrients at all - which is ludicrous.
I only read her last quote that seems to summarize her point.
1) I did say is that it can and likely will improve your overall quality of life and even reverse certain diseases
You agree or disagree?
2) For those who think macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein) are all that matters, have a read about what a nutrient actually is and how it's more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient
You agree or disagree?
I didn't read the wiki but I tend to agree with both of her statements. In a general sense.
I'm not sure if she is saying junk foods are toxic or not vs them being very micronutrient lacking. And there is probably a bunch of ingredients in various junk foods that aren't particularly great for you but that is merely my opinion. And I'll quantify that by stating that the amount of junk food intake would have to be pretty high and often to make a difference.
Try reading the rest of her posts, then get back to us!
OK, offer me some grace please, lol... I'm working on how to best articulate my thoughts and views. But I will say that I do believe that most of what is available to us to eat is harmful to our bodies because a) the presence of chemicals and ingredients they contain, we were not made to consume and b) the absence of nutrients that heal and protect (immune system) us leave our guards down. It will do the best job it can with what it's given but sooner or later, it does catch up with you and the results are usually not good.
Maybe my approach was wrong at first but all I'm ultimately after is to offer hope to those who are struggling with these types of foods. There is another way and it's so worth it.. To have been able to say that you lived a life to it's fullest potential and in the process of doing so, you taught your children how to have the same.
I really do mean well. I promise.
1 -
-
GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »I do believe that most of what is available to us to eat is harmful to our bodies because a) the presence of chemicals and ingredients they contain, we were not made to consume and b) the absence of nutrients that heal and protect (immune system) us leave our guards down. It will do the best job it can with what it's given but sooner or later, it does catch up with you and the results are usually not good.
More food fear mongering...
0 -
GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »
You should run a quick google search regarding her scientific credibility1 -
LolBroScience wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »
You should run a quick google search regarding her scientific credibility
OK, I'll do that. Thank you.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So, really, it means nothing until the person using the word explains their definition of "a moderate amount."
I don't really use the term "moderation" much for my own diet (and let's not get into politics), but as I said in the other thread I don't actually think it's hard to define, although it is subjective.
It means eating a food in a "non excessive" manner. What is excessive? Well, we are talking about health and nutrition, so excessive would mean in a way that is contrary to the goals of good health and nutrition.
To use a common question as an example, there always seem to be a number of people worried that they are eating fruit in excess, usually because their sugar numbers are above some MFP goal. IMO, fruit is being eating in excess (or not in "moderation") is you eat so much that you are eating more than the calories you should be (you are gaining weight if you shouldn't or not losing if weight loss is your goal), getting less protein than you should be, or less overall nutrients than you should be. If none of those are true, and you just happen to like fruit and eat it in lieu of all the grains recommended by the old food pyramid, say, and go over your "sugar limit" as a result, so what? I still think that's moderate. It's all context.
The problem with "clean" IMO is not that it's subjective, but that it (a) means contradictory things, and (b) takes a word that means something specific and applies it to in essence insult the foods you don't choose to eat and those who eat them. Plus, in a food context it's essentially a religious term and demonstrates that there's a weirdly religious aspect to how some approach food.
And I say this as someone who can fetishize whole foods and the "natural" too. I just try to be self-aware of it and to realize it's my quirk and not some real issue of nutrition or purity. For many eating more processed foods (like the Nutrigrain bars you sometimes recommend) may be helpful to their nutrition goals, even though it would not be to mine. That's great.
I have never recommended a Nutrigrain bar. I don't eat them. I don't know what is in them or if they're good. I do eat Nature Valley Crunchy Granola bars (except cinnamon.) Do I recommend them a lot? I didn't know that, lol. They are VERY filling and yummy. When I ate no other fat, I ate those with my vitamins. It's one thing I never gave up. They are so good!
Oops, my mistake. But you knew what I meant! (My sister eats the Nutrigrain ones and they all seem about the same to me.)I did not see this thread everyone thinks I've seen. I don't know what politics are involved or even exactly what you mean by that. Today is not the first time I've suggested that we have no definitions for the words "clean" and "moderation", lol. It's not even the first week or month.
Oh, the politics comment wasn't a reference to the other thread. Just that fact that people claim to be a "moderate" or that certain policies appeal to "moderates" and that means nothing either. It was supposed to be humorous.All these cries of, "It's okay to eat it in moderation!" ... just drop the "in moderation." It's okay to eat it. Everyone can eat whatever they want, even if it's not good for them. It's also okay to eat a totally healthy diet, with absolutely no processed foods. Grow all your own food. Eat only McDonald's.
Yeah, sure. I think the discussion is about health, though. The point is that one can care about health and construct a diet that she thinks is healthy and yet which contains, I dunno, cheesecake, so long as the cheesecake is in moderation, by which I mean not excessive, by which I mean does not get in the way of the overall health and nutrition goals. Eating cheesecake for every meal would, as you wouldn't get enough micros or protein. Eating cheesecake so that you are over maintenance and gain would be excessive if you aren't underweight. There are ways to discuss the concept that aren't just personal preference even if it's (a) debateable and (b) subjective, so we won't all agree.
I think some people are better off giving up certain foods if that's what they want to do, so wouldn't even say that's not moderate. What bugs me is when people insist that the definition of health is eliminating foods, especially when the foods they insist should be eliminated aren't even bad IMO (the usual "all processed foods" thing). Or when false claims are made as to what's unhealthy about the foods (I simply don't believe that KFC chicken is "addictive" and think that's silly, although I also never eat it because if I am going to blow calories on fried chicken it had better be really delicious fried chicken worth the occasional splurge).Nobody is a better or worse person because they eat ribs or don't eat ice cream or whatever.
I would certainly hope that everyone agrees with this!
0 -
GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »GenesiaElizabeth wrote: »
You should run a quick google search regarding her scientific credibility
OK, I'll do that. Thank you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/06/16/quackmail-why-you-shouldnt-fall-for-the-internets-newest-fool-the-food-babe/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
- 389 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
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions