Opinions on so called 'healthy snacks'
Replies
-
ceoverturf wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
Patently false.
I learned that one person in this world believes that harvesting sugar cane deprives it of its life force and is thus less-healthy.
I did not know that before this thread.
me neither!0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The very first dang non-OP post in the thread was the "life force" person talking about refined sugar. The. very. first. post. Then, when said poster was asked for supporting data, the "life force" thing emerged.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
I think you need to read again. The life force thing came later. Shots have been fired from both sides, but one side was clearly baited in this thread. And it happened on page 1. This never should have become a sugar thread.
In between, the OP was told that the snacks were fine if they fit within her goals.
But in this case I feel bad for OP. again, this should never have ended up as a sugar thread.
I don't think I agree with that. From the wording the OP used it seems to me they do care about the sugar content of their snacks, so the argument was quite relevant. And I also think bad science shouldn't go unchallenged, let alone personal opinions passed on as holy truth and not what they are - opinions. We have yet to see a single source showing how refined sugar is bad *if* you get all your macro and micro nutrients already.0 -
0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
Patently false.
I learned that one person in this world believes that harvesting sugar cane deprives it of its life force and is thus less-healthy.
I did not know that before this thread.
lKR - of all the sugar threads I've seen, I've never seen one about its life force before.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes. Good answers were given.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
"as long as you are staying in your calorie/micro/macro targets for the day they are fine.
I think they're fine as long as you're able to maintain your calorie goal and they don't leave you feeling hungry
It's all relative to how much of it you're eating, what the rest of your diet is like and what your calories/macro goals are.
There is no reason why these items, or any other food item, cannot be part of a healthy diet. "
You really think those weren't helpful answers?
Yes, they were. And everyone of them could have been made, and in fact were being made, before the train wreck.
But like I said, it's better than TV.
0 -
How about trying the 21dsd & see if you can live without any of the extra "sugars"?
0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The very first dang non-OP post in the thread was the "life force" person talking about refined sugar. The. very. first. post. Then, when said poster was asked for supporting data, the "life force" thing emerged.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
I think you need to read again. The life force thing came later. Shots have been fired from both sides, but one side was clearly baited in this thread. And it happened on page 1. This never should have become a sugar thread.
In between, the OP was told that the snacks were fine if they fit within her goals.
But in this case I feel bad for OP. again, this should never have ended up as a sugar thread.
I don't think I agree with that. From the wording the OP used it seems to me they do care about the sugar content of their snacks, so the argument was quite relevant. And I also think bad science shouldn't go unchallenged, let alone personal opinions passed on as holy truth and not what they are - opinions. We have yet to see a single source showing how refined sugar is bad *if* you get all your macro and micro nutrients already.
even if you do miss your macros and/or micros for the day...like...shiiiiiit I missed my micros today *dies*0 -
ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I did answer OP....
if you don't care about it then why do you keep coming into this thread and contributing nothing to the actual discussion?
0 -
Because people care. Because people don't want lurkers to read something that is untrue, take it as gospel, and then change their entire diet based on someone's feelings rather than on actual facts.
But you know, what do I know, I'm just a spewing monkey.
It's stuff like this that makes me want to pound a "like" button.
0 -
KarenJanine wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because other people read that kind of idiocy, believe it, and make decisions based on it.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
I'm going to leave with just one question. Do you honestly think you all helped anyone with this particular thread? Really? What you probably did was keep this OP from ever posting again, and possibly others as all. I'm all for keeping out bad info, but that isn't what was accomplished here. No one learned anything here, I promise you that.
Patently false.
I learned that one person in this world believes that harvesting sugar cane deprives it of its life force and is thus less-healthy.
I did not know that before this thread.
lKR - of all the sugar threads I've seen, I've never seen one about its life force before.
Maybe that poster watched Fed up and believe it 100%
0 -
Healthy snacks I keep around and use =
1. butter (Kerrygold) and coconut oil in my coffee (typically one serving each, I have a food scale at hand but I work at home)
2. heavy whipping cream (also in coffee, but I suppose one could also pour a tablespoon out and take it like medicine)
3. pork rinds (remember the protein doesn't count because it is in an unavailable form)
4. 3 oz hamburger patties (at least they are three ounces of raw ground beef before I put them under the broiler when I am prepping. But the advantage here is that you get to decide what size you want to make them if you have a food scale).
5. Cheese (especially gouda from Aldi for the k2)
So, #1 won't be accessible at work unless you have a kitchen area with a hand blender. For #2 and #4 (and #5 maybe) will only work if you can at least bring a cooled container.
This isn't everything.. but I work at home so my refrigerator is around the corner. I also have used things like pan-fried chicken livers as a healthy snack.
"Healthy" stuff that doesn't work well for me: tree nuts. Eating them in moderation is an unhappy and frustrating experience. Pork rinds or the opposite. I *want* to stop eating them at about a serving. Nuts give me the munchies almost as badly as potato chips. I use them seldom. If you have more self-control than I do and don't mind the money, Walgreens sells Macadamia nuts, which I think are the best but they are high in calories and the cup that comes with the container holds *more* than one serving. I'd divvy them up in pre-weighed bags if I were you, before taking them to work.
As you can probably tell, my personal experience is that fat leaves me satiated and enables me to limit my calorie intake relatively effortlessly, and *seems* to affect my metabolism in a way that cooperates with losing weight. So the questions for OP are: Are you meeting your caloric goals? Are you doing so without being distracted by hunger/cravings? Are you losing what you think you should be losing (I assume you want to lose weight)?
The final question would be: Are you eating the stuff your body needs to grow and repair itself? That's not going to be settled by the results on the scale. Nor is it going to be settled in many cases to "settled science" because there is a lot less of that in this area than many people are willing to admit. My provisional opinion now is that your body is built from things like protein and fat, with sugar playing a subsidiary role for energy, so that affects my idea of what counts as a healthy snack.
For what it is worth...0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »is that a cat inside a turtles shell????
It's Catbug. I think he's a cat inside a lady bug shell.
0 -
ArtsyAlexis wrote: »ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
That's all I'm contributing to this pointless string of bull.
and the other poster came flying in with some BS argument about refined sugar vs natural sugar that does not even make sense. So are we just supposed to let pseudoscience go unchallenged?
Why does everything have to be a challenge? Why not answer OP and move on? Ignoring stuff on the internet is very useful, especially when it turns into a bunch of monkeys spewing stuff that nobody cares about.
Because people care. Because people don't want lurkers to read something that is untrue, take it as gospel, and then change their entire diet based on someone's feelings rather than on actual facts.
But you know, what do I know, I'm just a spewing monkey.
Wow, it's sad to think that anyone would take anything on here as gospel and actually change their entire diet. I wonder who would be that naive? Well never mind, I suppose some people are.0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The very first dang non-OP post in the thread was the "life force" person talking about refined sugar. The. very. first. post. Then, when said poster was asked for supporting data, the "life force" thing emerged.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Again, reading is fundamental. I didn't claim the OP did ask that. It was the "life force" contingent that injected that irrelevancy into the conversation. Until that point, it was pointed out to OP that the snacks are perfectly fine if they fit within her goals. Her question was answered.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you need to read the posts more closely.ArtsyAlexis wrote: »I think what everybody is failing to do is stick with the actual topic posted.
This argument could go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever but the fact is, both sides are failing to look at the other and failing just as much to put any factual evidence on the board.
I mean, really, it's like reading the comments on Youtube videos.
It was pointed out that the sugar -- and fat -- weren't inherently bad and that the snacks in question were fine if they fit within the OP's caloric and macro goals. Then the "life force" of sugar cane got injected into the conversation. But, yeah, if the other side of the argument is "lack of life force in the food" I'm certainly not persuaded.
OP never even asked about the difference in sugars. OP asked about what micros were and what healthy snacks are out there. Not about "natural" vs "refined" sugars.
Way to go everybody hijacking what could've been a good post.
I think you need to read again. The life force thing came later. Shots have been fired from both sides, but one side was clearly baited in this thread. And it happened on page 1. This never should have become a sugar thread.
In between, the OP was told that the snacks were fine if they fit within her goals.
But in this case I feel bad for OP. again, this should never have ended up as a sugar thread.
I don't think I agree with that. From the wording the OP used it seems to me they do care about the sugar content of their snacks, so the argument was quite relevant. And I also think bad science shouldn't go unchallenged, let alone personal opinions passed on as holy truth and not what they are - opinions. We have yet to see a single source showing how refined sugar is bad *if* you get all your macro and micro nutrients already.
even if you do miss your macros and/or micros for the day...like...shiiiiiit I missed my micros today *dies*
Oh, I quite agree... But to make a comparison between two things (i.e. two sources of sugar) there is this little thing called "all other things being equal" that the life-force person apparently has trouble with. That's where the having-met-your-macros-and-micros comes from.0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic within a forum topic. Off-topic or derogatory remarks are disrespectful. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting.This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
In many cases we are able to edit out the posts that violate this guideline, but unfortunately this particular thread has become too volatile to moderate efficiently.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
davis_em0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions