Can you really eat a burger?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with preserving food (such as canning) or enhancing the flavor of food either.
No, which is why I didn't suggest there was. It's a personal choice.
You didn't, but the person upthread was specifically talking about preservation and flavor-enhancing making foods "unclean," as well as touting the benefits of never eating canned foods.
If someone makes the choice to avoid certain foods, that's their business. However, promoting rhetoric about certain methods/ingredients making food "unclean" has a wider impact than the individual.
How? Did the poster suggest everyone should eat that way? Or were they just sharing their personal preference in answer to question?
The poster made specific statements about "your body" feeling better if one eats fewer chemicals (which is a completely impossible goal,by the way).
I went back and read a few posts and all I saw were a lot of "I", but perhaps I missed it. But I still don't see how her saying your body would feel something would affect how restrictive a diet of whole foods would inherently be. All weight loss diets are restrictive.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Right, so was I. Saying it's not great to use certain restriction tactics, which is what I think ana was talking about, is different than saying everyone has to eat DingDongs, whether they like them or not.
Still not my point. You seem to be suggesting that restrictions you don't agree with would be bad for everyone. If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. If not, I disagree.
I'm thinking Lemurcat is more referring to the anxiety caused by the restriction. It can be fine for some people, but if the belief in the restriction crosses a line and causes anxiety about food decisions, then it might not be the best way to live.
Personally, I see no point in arbitrary restrictions, but others have reasons behind those same restrictions (making them not arbitrary for that individual), so more power to them.
Exactly.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with preserving food (such as canning) or enhancing the flavor of food either.
No, which is why I didn't suggest there was. It's a personal choice.
You didn't, but the person upthread was specifically talking about preservation and flavor-enhancing making foods "unclean," as well as touting the benefits of never eating canned foods.
If someone makes the choice to avoid certain foods, that's their business. However, promoting rhetoric about certain methods/ingredients making food "unclean" has a wider impact than the individual.
How? Did the poster suggest everyone should eat that way? Or were they just sharing their personal preference in answer to question?
The poster made specific statements about "your body" feeling better if one eats fewer chemicals (which is a completely impossible goal,by the way).
I went back and read a few posts and all I saw were a lot of "I", but perhaps I missed it. But I still don't see how her saying your body would feel something would affect how restrictive a diet of whole foods would inherently be. All weight loss diets are restrictive.
actually, all weight loss diets restrict calories..
slight difference between restricting something because one views it as "bad" and realizing that one need to restrict ALL calories because one has become over weight.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with preserving food (such as canning) or enhancing the flavor of food either.
No, which is why I didn't suggest there was. It's a personal choice.
You didn't, but the person upthread was specifically talking about preservation and flavor-enhancing making foods "unclean," as well as touting the benefits of never eating canned foods.
If someone makes the choice to avoid certain foods, that's their business. However, promoting rhetoric about certain methods/ingredients making food "unclean" has a wider impact than the individual.
How? Did the poster suggest everyone should eat that way? Or were they just sharing their personal preference in answer to question?
The poster made specific statements about "your body" feeling better if one eats fewer chemicals (which is a completely impossible goal,by the way).
I went back and read a few posts and all I saw were a lot of "I", but perhaps I missed it. But I still don't see how her saying your body would feel something would affect how restrictive a diet of whole foods would inherently be. All weight loss diets are restrictive.
I see a difference in the restriction of "I'd better not have the double cheeseburger because it doesn't fit my calorie goal for today (so maybe I'll just order a single or have the double next week)" and "Eating tomatoes from a can is unclean."
Not to mention that one is based on observable science (CICO) and the other is based on impossible goals (avoid chemicals), shaky science (gluten is bad for everyone), or vague generalities (preserved food is unclean).
Dividing the world into "clean" and "unclean" food may work well for some people (in that it may not make them feel restricted), but I also think it would have the potential to make things worse for some others. If there was a valid basis for the clean/unclean divide, it might be worth it. But there doesn't appear to be any foundation for it. We're talking about a way of thinking that will lead one to eliminate canned tomatoes or pickled vegetables (at least in some manifestations).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with preserving food (such as canning) or enhancing the flavor of food either.
No, which is why I didn't suggest there was. It's a personal choice.
You didn't, but the person upthread was specifically talking about preservation and flavor-enhancing making foods "unclean," as well as touting the benefits of never eating canned foods.
If someone makes the choice to avoid certain foods, that's their business. However, promoting rhetoric about certain methods/ingredients making food "unclean" has a wider impact than the individual.
How? Did the poster suggest everyone should eat that way? Or were they just sharing their personal preference in answer to question?
The poster made specific statements about "your body" feeling better if one eats fewer chemicals (which is a completely impossible goal,by the way).
I went back and read a few posts and all I saw were a lot of "I", but perhaps I missed it. But I still don't see how her saying your body would feel something would affect how restrictive a diet of whole foods would inherently be. All weight loss diets are restrictive.
I see a difference in the restriction of "I'd better not have the double cheeseburger because it doesn't fit my calorie goal for today (so maybe I'll just order a single or have the double next week)" and "Eating tomatoes from a can is unclean."
Not to mention that one is based on observable science (CICO) and the other is based on impossible goals (avoid chemicals), shaky science (gluten is bad for everyone), or vague generalities (preserved food is unclean).
Dividing the world into "clean" and "unclean" food may work well for some people (in that it may not make them feel restricted), but I also think it would have the potential to make things worse for some others. If there was a valid basis for the clean/unclean divide, it might be worth it. But there doesn't appear to be any foundation for it. We're talking about a way of thinking that will lead one to eliminate canned tomatoes or pickled vegetables (at least in some manifestations).
So what if they want to eliminate canned and pickled vegetables? If they are happy doing that, where is the harm?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So what if they want to eliminate canned and pickled vegetables? If they are happy doing that, where is the harm?
As I said above, I don't care what people personally decide to eliminate. It's promoting it to others that I'm addressing. I understand you don't think the poster was doing that, I disagree. She was specifically saying that the bodies of others would feel better if they eliminated "chemicals" (such as those used to preserve food and enhance flavor) and canned foods from the diet.
0 -
I'm just going to leave this here:
Every thing is made up of chemicals. Every single thing.0 -
I have an In n Out Cheeseburger and 8 fries a couple of times a month. Never had a problem with it as long as I keep it within my calories.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So what if they want to eliminate canned and pickled vegetables? If they are happy doing that, where is the harm?
As I said above, I don't care what people personally decide to eliminate. It's promoting it to others that I'm addressing. I understand you don't think the poster was doing that, I disagree. She was specifically saying that the bodies of others would feel better if they eliminated "chemicals" (such as those used to preserve food and enhance flavor) and canned foods from the diet.
I didn't read that, but will take your word for it because I don't care enough to go back and read through pages of responses and you don't seem inclined to quote it.
But again, how does her belief about what her or your or anyone's body will feel on a certain diet make her diet more restrictive for her?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Right, so was I. Saying it's not great to use certain restriction tactics, which is what I think ana was talking about, is different than saying everyone has to eat DingDongs, whether they like them or not.
Still not my point. You seem to be suggesting that restrictions you don't agree with would be bad for everyone. If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. If not, I disagree.
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that achieving a restriction by convincing yourself of non-factual or untrue things (like "eating that burger will make me FAT" or "a burger is BAD") are generally ways of restricting foods that lead to shame and other bad attitudes toward food that for many people result in dysfunctional relationships. That's a separate issue from whether restrictions (as I did myself in January toward added sugar, for example) can sometimes be helpful to a particular person. IMO, what matters is that the basis for the restriction be more logical (or at least practical) and not based on scare tactics. This has nothing to do with whether a particular restriction would make sense for me--that's going to be individual.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Right, so was I. Saying it's not great to use certain restriction tactics, which is what I think ana was talking about, is different than saying everyone has to eat DingDongs, whether they like them or not.
Still not my point. You seem to be suggesting that restrictions you don't agree with would be bad for everyone. If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. If not, I disagree.
I'm thinking Lemurcat is more referring to the anxiety caused by the restriction. It can be fine for some people, but if the belief in the restriction crosses a line and causes anxiety about food decisions, then it might not be the best way to live.
Personally, I see no point in arbitrary restrictions, but others have reasons behind those same restrictions (making them not arbitrary for that individual), so more power to them.
Exactly.
Not sure where "exactly" comes in, as auddii seems to have understood what I was saying (which was not that restrictions are bad in themselves, but that encouraging anxiety or dysfunctional views about food are bad).0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I could eat a Big Mac every day for dinner and still lose weight.
Actually, I did this before, except it was a Whopper. BK rules.
Whoppers are way > than Big Macs...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Right, so was I. Saying it's not great to use certain restriction tactics, which is what I think ana was talking about, is different than saying everyone has to eat DingDongs, whether they like them or not.
Still not my point. You seem to be suggesting that restrictions you don't agree with would be bad for everyone. If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. If not, I disagree.
I'm thinking Lemurcat is more referring to the anxiety caused by the restriction. It can be fine for some people, but if the belief in the restriction crosses a line and causes anxiety about food decisions, then it might not be the best way to live.
Personally, I see no point in arbitrary restrictions, but others have reasons behind those same restrictions (making them not arbitrary for that individual), so more power to them.
Exactly.
Not sure where "exactly" comes in, as auddii seems to have understood what I was saying (which was not that restrictions are bad in themselves, but that encouraging anxiety or dysfunctional views about food are bad).
Sorry, I meant exactly this: Personally, I see no point in arbitrary restrictions, but others have reasons behind those same restrictions (making them not arbitrary for that individual), so more power to them.
What you did/do only matters for you. What makes you binge only matters for you. What you feel is restrictive only matters for you.
And because I don't want a warning for hijacking a thread, that's the last I'll say on this matter. Either you understand my point or you don't. Best of luck to you either way.0 -
AmazonMayan wrote: »That's one of the things I have only occasionally because of number of calories. Make it a quality burger. Know the calories. Enjoy
Oh and yes anything if it fits.....although I do feel better overall physically if I mostly eat really nutritious food and keep high calorie/less nutritious items in moderation
Quality over quantity.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Right, so was I. Saying it's not great to use certain restriction tactics, which is what I think ana was talking about, is different than saying everyone has to eat DingDongs, whether they like them or not.
Still not my point. You seem to be suggesting that restrictions you don't agree with would be bad for everyone. If I've misinterpreted, I apologize. If not, I disagree.
I'm thinking Lemurcat is more referring to the anxiety caused by the restriction. It can be fine for some people, but if the belief in the restriction crosses a line and causes anxiety about food decisions, then it might not be the best way to live.
Personally, I see no point in arbitrary restrictions, but others have reasons behind those same restrictions (making them not arbitrary for that individual), so more power to them.
Exactly.
Not sure where "exactly" comes in, as auddii seems to have understood what I was saying (which was not that restrictions are bad in themselves, but that encouraging anxiety or dysfunctional views about food are bad).
Sorry, I meant exactly this: Personally, I see no point in arbitrary restrictions, but others have reasons behind those same restrictions (making them not arbitrary for that individual), so more power to them.
What you did/do only matters for you. What makes you binge only matters for you. What you feel is restrictive only matters for you.
And because I don't want a warning for hijacking a thread, that's the last I'll say on this matter. Either you understand my point or you don't. Best of luck to you either way.
LOL oh the irony....0 -
I eat burgers all the time. I've lost 85 pounds. I have cut NOTHING from my menu. I just plan for it now.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So what if they want to eliminate canned and pickled vegetables? If they are happy doing that, where is the harm?
As I said above, I don't care what people personally decide to eliminate. It's promoting it to others that I'm addressing. I understand you don't think the poster was doing that, I disagree. She was specifically saying that the bodies of others would feel better if they eliminated "chemicals" (such as those used to preserve food and enhance flavor) and canned foods from the diet.
I didn't read that, but will take your word for it because I don't care enough to go back and read through pages of responses and you don't seem inclined to quote it.
But again, how does her belief about what her or your or anyone's body will feel on a certain diet make her diet more restrictive for her?
I don't think I made any statements about how restrictive her diet is to her (although it may be worth noting that she herself doesn't meet most of her self-held requirements for a "clean" diet, even those that are possible). Another person brought up that trying to adhere to "clean eating" would feel restrictive to her and I don't disagree with her personal experience.
I don't doubt that some people could eliminate all food that is preserved or contains any sort of flavor enhancement from their diet and not feel much of a sense of restriction, although I don't know if most people coming to this site for initial help/information with weight loss and/or maintaining would fit in that category. I don't think eliminating chemicals from the diet is possible at all, so I can't speak as to what level of restriction someone might feel while doing that.
The point is: if people promote these goals to others as the way to feel better, should other users feel free to call them out on it? I think the answer is yes.
0 -
I had a piece of cake this weekend and I put on 45lbs overnight...I KID, I KID!!!! Of course you can if it fits in the CICO equation. I personally like mine with a laughing cow cheese wedge on it and BBQ sauce.0
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »Where people go overboard is taking in too many macros at once. Sure, have that 800 calorie burger, but if you are hungry in 4 hours, and you honor that, then where did that food go? Did it get used, or stored? In 4 hours, you would have to be very busy or vety overweight, bc bmr awake is usually in the 100-150 per hour range for people that are within 100 lbs overweight. So, if you are eating again, and the body hasnt fully metabolized that burger, that is where the burger will make you more overweight. It is why chips, hotdogs, ice cream, and soda make people overweight. They just have too much of it and it doesnt get metabolized and used as energy.
No, this is absolutely wrong. If you burn more than you consume, you will lose weight. It doesn't matter where the calories come from (for weight loss anyway) or when.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions