Where have all the healthy eaters gone?
Replies
-
DawnieB1977 wrote: »It's about moderation. Personally I prefer to have a treat day when I'll have some chocolate or cake and then eat really healthily the rest of the week, but some people prefer to have say a small chocolate bar every day.
I agree that anything can be part of a healthy diet, but if the majority of your food is coming from junk every day then that's not healthy.
I also found the cereal argument funny. I think we can agree branflakes are healthier with more nutritional value than the other cereal, which I've never seen here in England. I don't eat cereal anyway as I think most cereals have too much sugar in them. However, if you've had a healthy day then I don't see the harm in a small bowl of cereal.
I find there are some people on the forums who seem to like showing off that they eat pizza, sweets, McDonald's, ice-cream etc. Personally if I eat like that too often I feel horrible, but that's me. We're all different....which is another concept some people on MFP can't grasp.
I love when people say "we" as to say the debate is over and everyone that does not agree with the "we" is going against the majority. It is an easy way to create a straw man …
The paragraph bolded is a total contradiction. You say bran flakes is the obvious healthier choice (no explanation why) but then you go on to say its ok to have a small bowl of cereal, by which I assume you mean captain crunch ...
To me the cereal would be like a sweet treat, no different to having a small choc bar or something. I'm assuming it's quite a sugary cereal? Someone in the other thread posted the nutritional info and the branflakes had more fibre, protein and fewer calories, so that's why I'm saying they'd be a better choice. I thought it would be common knowledge that a cereal like branflakes is better nutritionally than cocoa pops, frosties etc. I find branflakes quite sweet too though and I'd have something like that if I wanted something sweet.
As I said it's about moderation so I don't see the harm in having a small bowl of cereal if you're within calories, but it's not something I'd choose to do if I'd had say pizza for dinner. However, each to their own, and what works for one person will not necessarily work for another.0 -
For example today's (healthy?) menu
Breakfast- oatmeal with chocolate almonds, milky coffee, 1/2 grapefruit
Lunch- leftover beans and rice with peas, served on top of a bed of lettuce
Dinner- Vegan 13 bean soup (chock full o'veggies too), 2 wholegrain rolls
Dessert- Hot chocolate with a shot of whiskey in it.0 -
I think it's probably a reaction against the sanctimonious, higher-than-mighty attitude a number of threads imbue because those who believe they are eating healthily seem to consider themselves better than others who they believe aren't. And a lot of the 'healthy eating' can revolve around the latest fads and gimmicks and dietary advice
A number of posters here advise eating what you want within a defecit to meet the ultimate goal of losing weight often believe in the 80:20 rule - because cutting out everything you love can cause you to crash and burn
Yet it's OK and not bullying at all to call them "badly behaved" and "MFP Bullies" whereas those who eat healthily will not do that because clearly their haloes prevent it
There are many ways to be rude - I don't find straight-to-the-point opinions rude but I do find sanctimonious attitudes rude
I wish there was an up-vote button for this, I'd hit it twice! I'm rather new to the forum but have come across a lot of rude or just uncomfortable behaviour/posts/threads on these forums, and it does keep me from getting involved to the extend I'd want sometimes. Usually I just lurk around most threads and don't post unless I have a rather strong opinion on the matter. This also doesn't only go for "clean eating" or similar posts, but many other topics as well.0 -
I think the divide is actually a lot smaller now. I'm not saying it's gone, but it's less combative and more people willing to concede common ground.
A lot of the people who talk about their enjoyment of higher calorie and possibly less nutrient dense foods often have a calorie allowance that allows them that. They are eating healthfully, and they can easily afford the fun foods. For those that have to be more discretionary with their calories, that can look unhealthy, because both camps are usually thinking about the way they eat, not how the man with a 3000 calorie TDEE eats. I can't imagine what it would be like to have the TDEE of some of the folks here-but if I did, I'd be eating more fun foods more often, and I consider healthy eating important.0 -
Its not about me. It's done all the time, to many people.
Better behaved.GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
That would consist of not asking seemingly-innocent questions in order to get a response so that they can start with the mocking, name-calling, insulting and "I'm so much better and smarter than you are" bull.
Not bullying.
get over yourself …
you come into every thread and white knight it about bullying and people not
"behaving" just because you have some impression that you are being "bullied"…when the majority of the time you are being called out for an inaccurate statement and then you perceive that as "bullying" ..
*eye roll*
So many people leave here - or won't even post - because of it.
When people stop with the insults, mocking, name-calling and public announcements of they're all laughing at someone, I will cease to say they are bullying others.
I don't post much in the forums anymore, but I can tell that it's a never-ending theme these days of "clean eaters" to sit on a high horse regarding their food choices. That is the primary thing that is annoying to read as it is being rubbed in the faces of others over and over.
This air of superiority is to be read in your comments, too, whether you believe it or not. You aren't helping anyone by stirring the pot with these bullying accusations, but are making things worse. And the better behaved stuff you wrote earlier is coming from a high horse. You might not like to hear it, but it is that exact attitude that has turned voices against you in this thread. High horse.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »but I see no reason to join the Church of Healthy Eating.
I think the Church of Healthy Eating should meet up with the Mosque of Moderation, The Synagogue of Starting Strength and The Temple of Tempo Cardio and have the big old fight once and for all.
The rest of us can then just roll our eyes and get on with business as usual...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
I believe they are referring to their point of "content with what they eat and let others do as they please" - that certainly would be better behaved than 'attacking' people for what they eat in particular, which I see happen here often. If that isn't it & what's actually being suggested is that 'people who eat very healthy are better behaved' well, they can stick that.
Typically people are not being attacked for how they choose to eat, what is discussed is attacked is the thought that you have to "eat clean" or whatever nonsense to lose weight. It's also not the person that is attacked it is the idea that is questioned.
Either way they can stick the better behaved comment as this is not kindergarten
Agreed. People are getting stick for talking/asking about different dietary approaches recently keto for example has become popular people were getting bombarded with negativity just for asking about it. I think it's because this forum has seen it all & are just tired with people trying to use excuses or quick fixes, but the curious also seem to get lumped in with this.
I'm a "clean eater" but I just enjoyed a nice 300g down of mint choc chip ice cream, that's what makes balance so wonderful. it's around 80/20 for me. I know for some people they have to be 100% but everyone needs to realise that we are all individuals. Those people who have that "this is the only way" attitude need to take a back seat.
So you aren't really a clean eater. Thus, why use the term when you know it's controversial. I care about healthy eating but would never claim "clean" because it's meaningless and rude and because anyone could reasonably point out that I eat ice cream and processed foods like smoked salmon and cottage cheese and the occasional boneless skinless chicken breast. I think it's weird when people claim not to eat processed when of course they do.
That's why I used quote marks when stating "clean" I am to build the majority of my diet from unprocessed (disregarding cooking, cutting & cleaning) sources. I didn't claim I ate no processed foods, I did the opposite. I was using it to point out that some things work for some (like 100% clean) but not others, and using my own experience with sustainability to drive the point.
Right, and I pretty much agree with that, but I'm asking why then identify with or invoke the term clean. In the context of the MFP arguments you aren't a clean eater based on what you said unless you just like the label. An argument about labels is not disagreement with healthy eating, as some like to proclaim. Most who say clean eating isn't meaningful or necessary probably eat like you. So again, why assert that you are clean? I simply don't get it. Based on the same criteria I know I'm not.
So the issue is just that I used the term clean? I didn't really want to attach myself to the label - hence keeping some distance by using quote marks. I am one of those people who say & think the clean eating mantra isn't meaningful (ofc it works for some which is great) I personally HATE the label, it suggests that other ways of eating are un-clean. I guess I should have said I eat mostly foods that are classed as "clean", but even though it's not 100% that's still healthy & working, that's what I mean. Is this clearer? I'm very anti "one true way" s'all about that individual balance.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
I believe they are referring to their point of "content with what they eat and let others do as they please" - that certainly would be better behaved than 'attacking' people for what they eat in particular, which I see happen here often. If that isn't it & what's actually being suggested is that 'people who eat very healthy are better behaved' well, they can stick that.
Typically people are not being attacked for how they choose to eat, what is discussed is attacked is the thought that you have to "eat clean" or whatever nonsense to lose weight. It's also not the person that is attacked it is the idea that is questioned.
Either way they can stick the better behaved comment as this is not kindergarten
Agreed. People are getting stick for talking/asking about different dietary approaches recently keto for example has become popular people were getting bombarded with negativity just for asking about it. I think it's because this forum has seen it all & are just tired with people trying to use excuses or quick fixes, but the curious also seem to get lumped in with this.
I'm a "clean eater" but I just enjoyed a nice 300g down of mint choc chip ice cream, that's what makes balance so wonderful. it's around 80/20 for me. I know for some people they have to be 100% but everyone needs to realise that we are all individuals. Those people who have that "this is the only way" attitude need to take a back seat.
So you aren't really a clean eater. Thus, why use the term when you know it's controversial. I care about healthy eating but would never claim "clean" because it's meaningless and rude and because anyone could reasonably point out that I eat ice cream and processed foods like smoked salmon and cottage cheese and the occasional boneless skinless chicken breast. I think it's weird when people claim not to eat processed when of course they do.
That's why I used quote marks when stating "clean" I am to build the majority of my diet from unprocessed (disregarding cooking, cutting & cleaning) sources. I didn't claim I ate no processed foods, I did the opposite. I was using it to point out that some things work for some (like 100% clean) but not others, and using my own experience with sustainability to drive the point.
If these are foods that work for you then those are the foods you should eat. I'm a big fan of doing what works best for an individual so if it's clean eating, vegitarian/vegan, paleo, keto, low fat, IFFYM, flex eating or whatever else you want to follow, as long as you can sustain it long-term without undue suffering than that's what you should do.0 -
define "healthy"…?
and in….because I was late on the cereal thread…
OP what makes you think your notion of eating is "healthy" over someone else's…?
and are you saying that someone that eats captain crunch and drinks soda does not work out?
OP did not say anything of the kind and you don't know what she thinks. She also did not mention captain crunch or soda specifically.
0 -
melimomTARDIS wrote: »For example today's (healthy?) menu
Breakfast- oatmeal with chocolate almonds, milky coffee, 1/2 grapefruit
Lunch- leftover beans and rice with peas, served on top of a bed of lettuce
Dinner- Vegan 13 bean soup (chock full o'veggies too), 2 wholegrain rolls
Dessert- Hot chocolate with a shot of whiskey in it.
That sounds like a nice day. I like the idea of whiskey in the hot choc, must try that one!0 -
Its not about me. It's done all the time, to many people.
Better behaved.GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
That would consist of not asking seemingly-innocent questions in order to get a response so that they can start with the mocking, name-calling, insulting and "I'm so much better and smarter than you are" bull.
Not bullying.
get over yourself …
you come into every thread and white knight it about bullying and people not
"behaving" just because you have some impression that you are being "bullied"…when the majority of the time you are being called out for an inaccurate statement and then you perceive that as "bullying" ..
*eye roll*
So many people leave here - or won't even post - because of it.
When people stop with the insults, mocking, name-calling and public announcements of they're all laughing at someone, I will cease to say they are bullying others.
I feel like it's only done (for the most part) to people who, when given sound information about how what they're spouting is ill-informed, react in a defensive manner and completely disregard the advice given.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
I believe they are referring to their point of "content with what they eat and let others do as they please" - that certainly would be better behaved than 'attacking' people for what they eat in particular, which I see happen here often. If that isn't it & what's actually being suggested is that 'people who eat very healthy are better behaved' well, they can stick that.
Typically people are not being attacked for how they choose to eat, what is discussed is attacked is the thought that you have to "eat clean" or whatever nonsense to lose weight. It's also not the person that is attacked it is the idea that is questioned.
Either way they can stick the better behaved comment as this is not kindergarten
Agreed. People are getting stick for talking/asking about different dietary approaches recently keto for example has become popular people were getting bombarded with negativity just for asking about it. I think it's because this forum has seen it all & are just tired with people trying to use excuses or quick fixes, but the curious also seem to get lumped in with this.
I'm a "clean eater" but I just enjoyed a nice 300g down of mint choc chip ice cream, that's what makes balance so wonderful. it's around 80/20 for me. I know for some people they have to be 100% but everyone needs to realise that we are all individuals. Those people who have that "this is the only way" attitude need to take a back seat.
So you aren't really a clean eater. Thus, why use the term when you know it's controversial. I care about healthy eating but would never claim "clean" because it's meaningless and rude and because anyone could reasonably point out that I eat ice cream and processed foods like smoked salmon and cottage cheese and the occasional boneless skinless chicken breast. I think it's weird when people claim not to eat processed when of course they do.
That's why I used quote marks when stating "clean" I am to build the majority of my diet from unprocessed (disregarding cooking, cutting & cleaning) sources. I didn't claim I ate no processed foods, I did the opposite. I was using it to point out that some things work for some (like 100% clean) but not others, and using my own experience with sustainability to drive the point.
If these are foods that work for you then those are the foods you should eat. I'm a big fan of doing what works best for an individual so if it's clean eating, vegitarian/vegan, paleo, keto, low fat, IFFYM, flex eating or whatever else you want to follow, as long as you can sustain it long-term without undue suffering than that's what you should do.
So many this & thankfully this is the attitude of the majority of the forum, which is why it's still worth coming here.0 -
Slow day at work, count me in.0
-
Drama. I like to eat healthy0
-
I think the divide is actually a lot smaller now. I'm not saying it's gone, but it's less combative and more people willing to concede common ground.
A lot of the people who talk about their enjoyment of higher calorie and possibly less nutrient dense foods often have a calorie allowance that allows them that. They are eating healthfully, and they can easily afford the fun foods. For those that have to be more discretionary with their calories, that can look unhealthy, because both camps are usually thinking about the way they eat, not how the man with a 3000 calorie TDEE eats. I can't imagine what it would be like to have the TDEE of some of the folks here-but if I did, I'd be eating more fun foods more often, and I consider healthy eating important.
Yes, I think you're right. I'm far more restrictive now that I'm losing baby weight than I was pre-pregnancy when I was pretty much at my ideal weight. I was still very healthy and very careful, but I was more likely then to enjoy an ice-cream with my kids on the seafront, than this year while I miserably sipped my coffee watching them eat ice-cream lol. Next Summer....0 -
define "healthy"…?
and in….because I was late on the cereal thread…
OP what makes you think your notion of eating is "healthy" over someone else's…?
and are you saying that someone that eats captain crunch and drinks soda does not work out?
OP did not say anything of the kind and you don't know what she thinks. She also did not mention captain crunch or soda and neither did she refer to working out.
She did mention captain crunch & soda so you might want to reread the OPI've only been back a couple of weeks. When I used to read the forums during my weight loss journey (in maintenance now), there seemed to be many posters discussing healthy eating and exercise, i.e., living a healthy lifestyle. Now it seems that most only care about calorie deficits and think captain crunch and soda is healthy. What happened?
There I bolded it for you so it's easier to see0 -
IN.0
-
How do I log the 'Hokey Cokey' then?0
-
I've only been back a couple of weeks. When I used to read the forums during my weight loss journey (in maintenance now), there seemed to be many posters discussing healthy eating and exercise, i.e., living a healthy lifestyle. Now it seems that most only care about calorie deficits and think captain crunch and soda is healthy. What happened?
This is a weight loss website buddy - you want health look elsewhere!!!!
0 -
Ditto my "healthy" yoga friends sit with me at lunch devouring a baked potatoe covered with bacon, cheese, butter every imagined thing you can place on a potatoe while I eat a salad. They are all skinny minis and debunk each of my cusades easily with workout eat what you want. I still grumble do my cardio but have to face the fact I have to do weights or hot yoga ugh...... I think I will take weightsmelimomTARDIS wrote: »I really like the attitude on these forums, but I could be alone in that.
When I first came here (last February) I did believe that certain foods made you fat, and "natural" foods would make me slim/healthy.and eating unchecked amounts of Natural foods like almonds,nut butters,fruit, real butter, homemade oatmeal cookies (200 cals per cookie I found out),
Which is why I believed that the slim people I know in my life must have crazy metabolisms... how else could they get away with eating junk?
When I found out weight is REALLY a CICO thing I was shocked, and a little (a lot) embarrassed. I think the rudeness on the forums helps shake people up. You can eat chocolate every day, you can stuff yourself on thanksgiving/holidays, and still maintain a slim figure.
However you eat should be sustainable for you. My diet includes alcohol and processed foods, but my friends say I am a very "healthy" eater.
eat what you want then run it off like someone is chasing you....
0 -
It shouldn't be done at all. People can disagree. People can refuse bad advice. People can even be dead wrong. That's all okay.blktngldhrt wrote: »
Its not about me. It's done all the time, to many people.
Better behaved.GiveMeCoffee wrote: »
That would consist of not asking seemingly-innocent questions in order to get a response so that they can start with the mocking, name-calling, insulting and "I'm so much better and smarter than you are" bull.
Not bullying.
get over yourself …
you come into every thread and white knight it about bullying and people not
"behaving" just because you have some impression that you are being "bullied"…when the majority of the time you are being called out for an inaccurate statement and then you perceive that as "bullying" ..
*eye roll*
So many people leave here - or won't even post - because of it.
When people stop with the insults, mocking, name-calling and public announcements of they're all laughing at someone, I will cease to say they are bullying others.
I feel like it's only done (for the most part) to people who, when given sound information about how what they're spouting is ill-informed, react in a defensive manner and completely disregard the advice given.
If that group went one week without mocking or personally attacking anyone, I'd be delighted to say, "I'm wrong. There isn't a group of Internet bullies on the forums." Delighted!-1 -
How do I log the 'Hokey Cokey' then?
You must pick the correct one out of the 9,000000000000000000 conflicting entries in the database.
Pick wisely, truth seeker.
Honestly, if this thread is going to devolve into people pointing fingers at each other then I am going to get up here on my high horse...
and observe from a safe distance.
0 -
-
DawnieB1977 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »It's about moderation. Personally I prefer to have a treat day when I'll have some chocolate or cake and then eat really healthily the rest of the week, but some people prefer to have say a small chocolate bar every day.
I agree that anything can be part of a healthy diet, but if the majority of your food is coming from junk every day then that's not healthy.
I also found the cereal argument funny. I think we can agree branflakes are healthier with more nutritional value than the other cereal, which I've never seen here in England. I don't eat cereal anyway as I think most cereals have too much sugar in them. However, if you've had a healthy day then I don't see the harm in a small bowl of cereal.
I find there are some people on the forums who seem to like showing off that they eat pizza, sweets, McDonald's, ice-cream etc. Personally if I eat like that too often I feel horrible, but that's me. We're all different....which is another concept some people on MFP can't grasp.
I love when people say "we" as to say the debate is over and everyone that does not agree with the "we" is going against the majority. It is an easy way to create a straw man …
The paragraph bolded is a total contradiction. You say bran flakes is the obvious healthier choice (no explanation why) but then you go on to say its ok to have a small bowl of cereal, by which I assume you mean captain crunch ...
To me the cereal would be like a sweet treat, no different to having a small choc bar or something. I'm assuming it's quite a sugary cereal? Someone in the other thread posted the nutritional info and the branflakes had more fibre, protein and fewer calories, so that's why I'm saying they'd be a better choice. I thought it would be common knowledge that a cereal like branflakes is better nutritionally than cocoa pops, frosties etc. I find branflakes quite sweet too though and I'd have something like that if I wanted something sweet.
As I said it's about moderation so I don't see the harm in having a small bowl of cereal if you're within calories, but it's not something I'd choose to do if I'd had say pizza for dinner. However, each to their own, and what works for one person will not necessarily work for another.
you have to stop looking at food vs food - you need to look at overall diet.
You don't get bonus points or extra healthy from eating more protein, fibre, etc. than what you actually need.
0 -
define "healthy"…?
and in….because I was late on the cereal thread…
OP what makes you think your notion of eating is "healthy" over someone else's…?
and are you saying that someone that eats captain crunch and drinks soda does not work out?
What does working out have to do with anything, some of the most fittest athlete in the world are also some of the most unhealthiest individuals.
Weight loss, health and fitness are three completely different things! the only thing its safe to have most of is health - IMHO that is. 0 -
DawnieB1977 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »It's about moderation. Personally I prefer to have a treat day when I'll have some chocolate or cake and then eat really healthily the rest of the week, but some people prefer to have say a small chocolate bar every day.
I agree that anything can be part of a healthy diet, but if the majority of your food is coming from junk every day then that's not healthy.
I also found the cereal argument funny. I think we can agree branflakes are healthier with more nutritional value than the other cereal, which I've never seen here in England. I don't eat cereal anyway as I think most cereals have too much sugar in them. However, if you've had a healthy day then I don't see the harm in a small bowl of cereal.
I find there are some people on the forums who seem to like showing off that they eat pizza, sweets, McDonald's, ice-cream etc. Personally if I eat like that too often I feel horrible, but that's me. We're all different....which is another concept some people on MFP can't grasp.
I love when people say "we" as to say the debate is over and everyone that does not agree with the "we" is going against the majority. It is an easy way to create a straw man …
The paragraph bolded is a total contradiction. You say bran flakes is the obvious healthier choice (no explanation why) but then you go on to say its ok to have a small bowl of cereal, by which I assume you mean captain crunch ...
To me the cereal would be like a sweet treat, no different to having a small choc bar or something. I'm assuming it's quite a sugary cereal? Someone in the other thread posted the nutritional info and the branflakes had more fibre, protein and fewer calories, so that's why I'm saying they'd be a better choice. I thought it would be common knowledge that a cereal like branflakes is better nutritionally than cocoa pops, frosties etc. I find branflakes quite sweet too though and I'd have something like that if I wanted something sweet.
As I said it's about moderation so I don't see the harm in having a small bowl of cereal if you're within calories, but it's not something I'd choose to do if I'd had say pizza for dinner. However, each to their own, and what works for one person will not necessarily work for another.
bran flakes had NINE fewer calories and about six less grams of sugar. ..huge difference…
0 -
define "healthy"…?
and in….because I was late on the cereal thread…
OP what makes you think your notion of eating is "healthy" over someone else's…?
and are you saying that someone that eats captain crunch and drinks soda does not work out?
OP did not say anything of the kind and you don't know what she thinks. She also did not mention captain crunch or soda specifically.
really? go back to page 1 and re-read it…or since you obviously did not read OP's original post here is the sentence:
"Now it seems that most only care about calorie deficits and think captain crunch and soda is healthy."0 -
This thread does leave me with a burning question (that I could google, but heck I'm lazy)
What on earth is Captain Crunch? And are Sugar Puffs better or worse?0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 96.3K 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