Sweets when bulking?
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
Yes but the context is different. Since this is the gaining section, a brownie will have much more calories per gram than broccoli will. So in THAT context, it's a much better choice. Not to mention fats and other various things that a gainer (or everyone) might need0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
One of my favorite quoted from Eric Helms seems relevant here "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food!"
Also, more is not necessarily better.0 -
Forecasterjason: here you go,
http://www.organicauthority.com/health/most-nutrient-dense-healthy-foods-on-earth.html
That's a wee joke for you btw, I'm not citing it as scientific evidence - just had a wee google 'micronutrients chocolate v brocolli' just sayin' =D0 -
No worries, I'm not and I usually do eat a relatively wide variety of food. But to be honest, aside from potatoes most days I'm nowhere close to what experts would recommend in terms of vegetables. It's generally just a serving of carrots or broccoli, and some days none at all.
omg please say you aren't doing this right now.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
micornutrients in the grand scheme are totally not that relevant.
if you eat a variety of food- you'll hit your micro nutrients just fine- its' like comparing the micros of captain crunch to a snickers bar to a pile of veggies.
It's NOT RELEVANT- it's such a specious tiny argument it's just ridiculous.
0 -
-
there's nothing wrong with brownies & ice cream (except that I currently have none...might have to remedy that shortly).0
-
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
No worries, I'm not and I usually do eat a relatively wide variety of food. But to be honest, aside from potatoes most days I'm nowhere close to what experts would recommend in terms of vegetables. It's generally just a serving of carrots or broccoli, and some days none at all.
omg please say you aren't doing this right now.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
micornutrients in the grand scheme are totally not that relevant.
if you eat a variety of food- you'll hit your micro nutrients just fine- its' like comparing the micros of captain crunch to a snickers bar to a pile of veggies.
It's NOT RELEVANT- it's such a specious tiny argument it's just ridiculous.
well that's your fault.
not the brownies.I don't know you. But I like you.
I'd even share my Snickers bar with you...okay, not really...but I'd at least buy one for you too.
this is why you buy the king size- one to save for later- or one to share with your friend if you are going to lift
I had snickers pre dance class last night- granted- I ate the egg first- but seemed that the egg pre-rehersal and the snickers pre dance movement did the trick.
might try that again. carbs- proteins- fats- win win everywhere.0 -
Thanks to all that stated I was wrong in my information, I've been bamboozled! I did some research and came across this article, that shed some light on why many said I was wrong; but didn't give supporting documentation of why I was wrong. Instead of just saying a person is wrong, show that person the error of his or her ways and let that person make a decision of which way they should go, or believe. Check out the article, it may better inform you, as it did me.
http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/
0 -
Thanks to all that stated I was wrong in my information, I've been bamboozled! I did some research and came across this article, that shed some light on why many said I was wrong; but didn't give supporting documentation of why I was wrong. Instead of just saying a person is wrong, show that person the error of his or her ways and let that person make a decision of which way they should go, or believe. Check out the article, it may better inform you, as it did me.
http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/
^^ Armi puts out really solid material. I'd also recommend this article and his other material. Great resource.
0 -
beastcompany wrote: »
Isn't it interesting how the 'Men's Health', nutritional gurus, are also the ones who are often AVI-less and have no proof of proper application of their "knowledge".ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
once again, you are incorrect....
LOL …
well a long time ago I was one of those "mens health gurus" they sucked me over to the dark side of starvation mode, six small meals a day, no carbs after 6pm ….it was not until I broke the chains of enslavement and enlightened myself that I saw the folly of my ways…
sigh, those were dark days...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???0 -
-
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
maybe you just need to re-train your brain ..but when you boil it down, food is just something that your body uses for energy. There is no "good" or "bad" food there is just food that you eat for energy and how you combine them will assist in body comp goals...0 -
..0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
0 -
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
Yes but the context is different. Since this is the gaining section, a brownie will have much more calories per gram than broccoli will. So in THAT context, it's a much better choice. Not to mention fats and other various things that a gainer (or everyone) might need
Explained here0 -
Thanks to all that stated I was wrong in my information, I've been bamboozled! I did some research and came across this article, that shed some light on why many said I was wrong; but didn't give supporting documentation of why I was wrong. Instead of just saying a person is wrong, show that person the error of his or her ways and let that person make a decision of which way they should go, or believe. Check out the article, it may better inform you, as it did me.
http://evidencemag.com/clean-eating/
Well, it's not often we manage to convert a 'clean' eater =D
Don't get me wrong, your dedication is impressive and if you've built your physique/bulked over the years on 'healthy' food, hats off to you. Just a lot of us couldn't manage that volume of food (and you don't really need to) and deprive ourself of foods we enjoy.
e.g. Once you're happy with your overall nutrition for the day, you might have 250 cals left (and you're bulking so you've got to have them). You could have a serving of brown rice at 265 (c56 f2 p5) or a snicker at 245 (c26 f13 p5) - I'm all about the snicker
It'd be interesting to know, if you start incorporating sweets, if you notice any differences. Personally, I've only tried it this way (I'd call it moderate) but I wouldn't rule out taking a 'cleaner' approach if I thought I'd get drastically better results. I hope not as it's miserable enough eating mostly clean during cutting time (to stave of hunger mostly) - I think it'd take a lot of the fun out of bulking.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I hate being sick! Apparently I missed one of the best new threads
0 -
Nicola0000 wrote: »
Pfft...I thought we'd moved on to eating carbs = gaining fat. Isn't that the new fad?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Thought this thread was dead, come back to 48 new comments haha!!0
-
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories.
And despite the fact that my diet is healthier than the typical American diet, I know that there are some micronutrients that I don't meet the recommended amounts of. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
BTW, I do eat some quantity of foods like this regularly, so I'm definitely not depriving myself either.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
dude - you are never going to get it..
eating white rice and white brad does not make one fat/unhealthy…over indulging to the point of obesity/poor health is what does…
Based on your comment the twinkie diet would be impossible, but it is a real thing. Guy ate nothing but twinkies for a month, ate in a deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers…so there goes your theory...
just stop bro, for real …cash in the chips and exit thread...-2 -
^^ yes, but the OPs a guy who's bulking and has his diet on point so in the context of the thread, brownies are not unhealthy. They're not unhealthy anyway but
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories.
And despite the fact that my diet is healthier than the typical American diet, I know that there are some micronutrients that I don't meet the recommended amounts of. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
BTW, I do eat some quantity of foods like this regularly, so I'm definitely not depriving myself either.
You are missing context again.
1) A brownie has more than sugar and flour - it has micronutrients that broccoli does not - maybe the brownie will get you close to your needs than broccoli will
2) maybe your fiber is way high - not always a good thing, so a brownie will be better in that context
3) maybe you are about to work out and need fast acting carbs
4) maybe you are just full and need to get your calories in (which, when bulking can be a challenge)
A brownie, or any other food is not healthy or unhealthy - the totality of ones diet may be healthier or unhealthier, depending on its make up.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, I can understand that assuming all micronutrient needs have been met. But a lot of people don't eat as healthy as they should from a micronutrient perspective. The average American eats plenty of white bread, white rice, meat, dairy, and sweets, and some fruits/vegetables. Obviously, it is very easy to meet macro needs from this, but half of these foods are not very rich in many micronutrients. Vegetables are known for their rich micronutrient content (depending on the specific vegetable), and aside from potatoes you won't find the average American chomping down on the recommended number of servings of vegetables. Although I believe my general diet to be healthier than the average American diet, I already admitted that I personally fall well short when it comes to vegetables.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree that it doesn't. I'll admit that a lot of the things I read on here I think of in a general context, which is why I was thrown off when beastcompany made the statement that "no food is healthy or unhealthy".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that (believe me, I can certainly understand that since I am trying to do a slow bulk). Brownies certainly trump broccoli in this scenario. But regardless of whatever else I eat for the day, it doesn't change the fact that broccoli will give me a lot more micronutrients than a brownie will.ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're joking, right? I'm talking about a typical brownie, not ones with added things like beans, oats, etc.beastcompany wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I get that, but I think I was just looking at it differently. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding something like brownies to an already healthy diet, but doing so doesn't all of a sudden make brownies a health food.ForecasterJason wrote: »
This doesn't make sense. The nutritional content of a food doesn't change regardless of the overall composition of one's diet. Obviously, adding a couple cookies to a diet rich in whole foods versus a diet already loaded with cake, chips, ice-cream, etc. is different, but that doesn't change the healthiness of the food.beastcompany wrote: »Rule #1 : If someone is telling you that an individual food is either "healthy" or "unhealthy", without reviewing the overall context of your daily dietary intake...you should proceed to ignore any further advice that person provides.
It does make sense. The point is that individual foods in isolation do not tell you the quality of the overall diet. If you're going to evaluate nutrient sufficiency (and other factors like energy balance, satiety, performance, etc) you look at the entire diet, you do not look at foods eaten in isolation.
There are contexts in which adding ice cream to a diet will do more good than adding green beans or broccoli. There are also contexts in which the opposite is true.
Explain how brownies are an "unhealthy" food.
Bare in mind, this means have VALID evidence to support your claims.
Peer-reviewed research, legitimate nutritional journals, etc. are valid.
Magazine articles, t.v. reports, and the like, are not.
But once again you HAVE to consider context.
There are legitimate scenarios where a brownie will be a much better choice than green vegetables.
again, you miss context…if you already hit your micros and the brownie rounds out your macros, what does it matter???
That still doesn't make sense though.
Even in general context, there is nothing "unhealthy" about a brownie.
So in the context of a diet that supplies all the micronutrients in the right amounts, yeah I can agree that a brownie isn't unhealthy. But, that's simply not how the average person in this culture eats. A typical brownie is really nothing but white flour and sugar. Aside from the vitamins that are sometimes added to flour, neither of these ingredients have anything beneficial to offer the body other than calories. So therefore, in a general context, I think a brownie would still be considered unhealthy. Am I making sense?
dude - you are never going to get it..
eating white rice and white brad does not make one fat/unhealthy…over indulging to the point of obesity/poor health is what does…
Based on your comment the twinkie diet would be impossible, but it is a real thing. Guy ate nothing but twinkies for a month, ate in a deficit, lost weight, and had better health markers…so there goes your theory...
just stop bro, for real …cash in the chips and exit thread...
Yeah bro, just stop. You're trying to change context and adjust an argument in order to make your point relevant - and it still isn't working. You state white flour and sugar have ntohing "beneficial to offer the body other than calories" - Do you realize that calories are the MOST BENEFICIAL thing for your body?? Without calories you die. The fact is you have the luxury of choosing what foods you eat. If you were starving, I highly doubt you'd look at the back of a brownie package for the macro/micro nutrition info, and throw it away because you thought it was "unhealthy". You'd eat it, because it's food.
And to answer your question - no, you aren't making any sense. Just stop.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions