Processed food......wowzers!
Replies
-
mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying.
Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
he does not have an answer for that because he consumes all his foods in a vacuum and the vegetable is always superior to the twinkie...
0 -
SherryTeach wrote: »I guess technically I am "processing" food when I batch cook and then freeze the portions. Processing something is not inherently evil. Combining ingredients, canning, freezing. . . all are part of food production and consumption.
So what you are saying is that your frozen dinners are no better, nor healthier than a Lean Cuisine?
I am not advocating that the Lean Cuisine is unhealthy but the implication that the processing of your meal done in your home is the same as if it is done in a factory.
BTW I eat processed foods...a few. I would probably eat more but the sodium content is too high for me due the BP issues.
0 -
mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?0 -
I totally understand. I get a little discomfort almost simultaneously after i eat something processed like a cookie. (My friend of days past)
Why is a cookie "processed" (beyond how all cooked food is, of course)? Because it includes flour, and the wheat must be processed to make flour, and sugar (from cane)? Or is it the vanilla and whatever spices you might use? Chocolate chips? Do you now believe that all foods with flour and sugar will cause discomfort? How is the sugar from cane and in the cookie affecting your body differently than other sugar? Or if it is the flour, how is that different than wheat in other forms?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EmmaFitzwilliam wrote: »Sure, "processed" can be applied astonishingly broadly. I eat a fair amount of canned foods (tomatoes and simmer sauces), to say nothing of desserts and cereal. But there are degrees. Everything from canned tomatoes and packaged tuna to, say, shelf-stable microwaveable ravioli.
Yes, sounds bad. I never eat microwaveable pasta and wouldn't expect anything of it.
But of course dried pasta (which I eat all the time and make healthy meals out of, with homemade sauce comprised of lots of veggies and lean protein and a little olive oil) is also processed.
So's the smoked salmon I had this morning and the feta I added to my omelet and greek yogurt. Also maybe my eggs (in a carton). I went to a pretty nice place for lunch and had a salad with a red wine vinaigrette with lamb and olives and lots of veggies on it, and of course any restaurant meal is processed. So focusing on "processed" vs. not just doesn't seem to be to be an important issue.
Exactly - that's what I meant when I acknowledged the spectrum.
I didn't have great expectations for the ravioli - it satisfied the options in play at the moment, and it absolutely lived down to its potential. Sure, under other circumstances leftovers from a dish I prepared with dried pasta would have been preferable. That wasn't an option at that moment.
I'm not anti-commercial processing, but I do recognize that more commercial processing typically leads to lower food quality. It's all a matter of choice. Smoked salmon, feta, Greek yogurt - rock on. Those feature pretty heavily in my choices as well. Frozen and shelf-stable microwaveable entrees, not so much.
Making choices which involve less commercial processing and higher food quality (including base quality of the core ingredients, and less diminution in quality as a result of processing) retrains the palate and the body.
And as the original post observed, even a short break from highly processed foods can result in a shock to the body when that break ends.
The OP had his own moment of "sugar, salt and fat" and "bag O'calories" and shared his observation.0 -
dizzieblondeuk wrote: »Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
I think sometimes it's the opposite, that people aren't willing to concede that the language they use doesn't convey to others precisely what they intended to convey. I don't expect people to necessarily have thought this through in advance, which is why I think I was perfectly nice, but it's also why I think questions like "what do you mean by processed'" is not in any way inappropriate or mean, and is instead a helpful question if any discussion is actually desired.
And also I wouldn't want people to think they should go nuts cutting out all processed foods (like greek yogurt) as bad for them unless someone can tell me why it would be. This isn't so much directed at the OP as other people reading the thread, of course.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
This is like MFP's version of Godwin's law. Or as I am wont to call it, "Reductio ad donutum."0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
Twinkies and yellow rice for life0 -
Six weeks after I did my diet flip, I broke down and ate most of a cheeseburger. It didn't make me sick, but it was uncomfortable. I felt different and not well. There's just a healthier, more energetic, UP kind of feeling that comes with eating healthier foods.
I get it.
Good for you, eating better. Way to go!
"dem feels" does not mean a food is bad for you…
As is so often the case, I have absolutely no idea what it is you're attempting to communicate. If it wasn't some leap of logic wherein a rude and/or insulting argument is made against something that wasn't said, please explain it to me.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
0 -
Six weeks after I did my diet flip, I broke down and ate most of a cheeseburger. It didn't make me sick, but it was uncomfortable. I felt different and not well. There's just a healthier, more energetic, UP kind of feeling that comes with eating healthier foods.
I get it.
Good for you, eating better. Way to go!
"dem feels" does not mean a food is bad for you…
As is so often the case, I have absolutely no idea what it is you're attempting to communicate. If it wasn't some leap of logic wherein a rude and/or insulting argument is made against something that wasn't said, please explain it to me.
not being rude at all.
I am simply point out that "feelings" does not make a food bad.
0 -
EmmaFitzwilliam wrote: »Exactly - that's what I meant when I acknowledged the spectrum.
This is why I find the use of the term "processed" to be unhelpful, as what the person is actually talking about is not the evils of processing -- after all, few of us believe that cooking foods or making cheese or yogurt from milk or giving into convenience by buying some baby-cut carrots or spinach in a bag or canned tomatoes or frozen peas or dried pasta is actually bad for us, yet (as we agree) these are in the incredibly broad category of "processed foods."
Normally what the person is talking about is high sodium content or poor macros or less than appealing taste or various other ingredients they consider questionable. That's why I wish they would be specific. You can make a meal at home that is incredibly calorie dense and micro-nutrient poor, after all.Making choices which involve less commercial processing and higher food quality (including base quality of the core ingredients, and less diminution in quality as a result of processing) retrains the palate and the body.
I never really felt like I needed to retrain my palate (I've always been a homecooking/whole foods snob who likes vegetables), but on the whole I have similar ideas about how I like to eat, but this is easy for me to say because I know how to cook pretty well and find it relaxing. For someone who relies on conveniences, I think it's worth looking at choices individually rather than assuming that all "processed" or "highly processed" choices are the same. I mean if I want to buy lunch (and I do often), presumably it's all highly processed, but there are restaurant choices that fit easily into my macros and have options that are similar to what I might make for myself (lots of the fast lunch places I'm thinking of are local, but I'll use Pret a Manger as a multi-national chain one that I consider a good option). Similarly, if you find that you are more likely to eat lunch and not just skip it and then eat 10 cookies mid afternoon if you can make it easy by bringing microwaveable meals, so I'm not inclined to say these are necessarily bad, even though I usually just don't like them. There are many differences in the nutritional value of them--some have terrible macros (subjective, meaning hard to fit in the usual plan) and lots of calories, others are low calorie but perhaps not that tasty or satisfying or have too much sodium (if that's a concern) or something, others are even recommended by people like Dr. Ornish as an okay alternative if you need it (Amy's Light and Lean, if memory serves). So I'm not inclined to say that it really depends, even for these--I wouldn't say that they necessarily have poor nutrition or food quality.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
This is like MFP's version of Godwin's law. Or as I am wont to call it, "Reductio ad donutum."
Heh, so true.
It would be nice if we could have the discussion just once without that disingenuous claim being made.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Who needs Google when we have mighty you to fill in the gaps ?
0 -
francoisd90 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Who needs Google when we have mighty you to fill in the gaps ?
are you going to add anything to the discussion or just flamebait?0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Given that exact scenario, which was precisely what I addressed, the rice/avocado example holds more nutritional value than the Twinkie, while meeting the same macro needs.
Again, read and comprehend before replying. I know you can't wait to get the snark out, but try next time.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Yep, placebo is all about expectations.PeachyCarol wrote: »I bet if I ate some grass-fed beef I'd feel pretty lousy with a quickness.
I've been a vegetarian for the past 4-5 years (can't remember exactly).
You know, there's also the fact that the mind is a very powerful thing.
True story here. I'm on a rather high dose of Cymbalta as part of my chronic migraine protocol. It has a pretty short half-life and optimally should be taken at the same time each day. On days when I've become aware that I've missed my dose, I feel terrible for it.
Today, I through a glitch in my early morning routine, I missed taking my morning meds. I didn't discover this error until dinner time tonight.
I felt fine all day.
The thing is, I know it's my mind when I feel terrible. I... can't undo it.
What you expect to feel, even subconsciously, is what you will often feel.
But people act like being subject to a placebo effect is some sort of personal failing or character flaw so they get all defensive when someone suggests placebo is at work.
I was a vegetarian for about two years and when I finally broke veg, I went a little nuts and had myself a bacon cheeseburger.
Needless to say, I was unhappy for a few days. That doesn't mean bacon, beef, and cheese are inherently bad.
They're THE BEST.0 -
francoisd90 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Who needs Google when we have mighty you to fill in the gaps ?
are you going to add anything to the discussion or just flamebait?
Nope Just watching you doing what you do best.... 0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
I'm just jumping in, but why would you leave out the micros? When people talk about eating an overall healthy diet, we are talking about hitting micros as well. I may be missing your point so just looking for clarification.
But using your example....there is no question that one has a better nutritional profile. No one would argue that. The issue is that "IF" you hit all of your micro needs and Fat and protein needs through out the day....and you still have calories left over....(I often have over 1000 calories left for the day after everything has been met) - how is that twinkie harmful to me if I eat with 1000 calories remaining for the day. How would the same amount of calories from broccoli be better since I would just be peeing out the nutrients anyway?
0 -
Six weeks after I did my diet flip, I broke down and ate most of a cheeseburger. It didn't make me sick, but it was uncomfortable. I felt different and not well. There's just a healthier, more energetic, UP kind of feeling that comes with eating healthier foods.
I get it.
Good for you, eating better. Way to go!
"dem feels" does not mean a food is bad for you…
As is so often the case, I have absolutely no idea what it is you're attempting to communicate. If it wasn't some leap of logic wherein a rude and/or insulting argument is made against something that wasn't said, please explain it to me.
not being rude at all.
I am simply point out that "feelings" does not make a food bad.
You were politely arguing against something that wasn't said. That's refreshing.
I agree. Feelings does not make a food bad.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Given that exact scenario, which was precisely what I addressed, the rice/avocado example holds more nutritional value than the Twinkie, while meeting the same macro needs.
Again, read and comprehend before replying. I know you can't wait to get the snark out, but try next time.
no, you set up a false choice between twinkies and yellow rice...
and you can slip in all the insults you want, all that means is that you lack the tools to debate the issue and have to resort to name calling.
0 -
francoisd90 wrote: »francoisd90 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Who needs Google when we have mighty you to fill in the gaps ?
are you going to add anything to the discussion or just flamebait?
Nope Just watching you doing what you do best....
so flamebait...
got ya..0 -
What's so great about yellow rice? It's fine, but there are plenty of starches that are basically interchangeable and I don't think anyone really needs a lot of starch in their diet, although it's a perfectly good source of calories and fuel (I eat more of it now I have a good rice cooker, although I tend to prefer other starches and that's one place I cut when cutting calories).
Avocados are delicious and contribute lots of things I seek to include in my diet. Even so, there are days when they wouldn't necessarily fit well--if, for example, I were quite low on protein and high on fat and calories because I'd already had an avocado for breakfast and lunch it would not be, IMO, healthy to include another avocado with dinner, despite the merits of the avocado.
I don't like Twinkies, so they would not be my choice for either quick energy if I were in need of it or an extra if I had room in my calories and was satisfied I'd gotten enough micronutrient rich foods and protein and the recommended fats. I'm also not interested enough to know if they have transfats or anything else I tend to avoid (like HFCS, although my reading of the evidence is that HFCS probably is not actually different than sugar in its effects). However, for the general category of foods without lots of micronutrients or protein that are relatively calorie dense and basically carbs and/or fat, I think they have their place--often they add to the overall pleasure and satisfaction of a diet--and more significantly I do not agree that they are unhealthy or will make you sick.
Nor does this have anything to do with how processed they are--the actual topic of the thread. That I prefer homemade baked goods does not transform those baked goods into the nutritional equivalent of chicken breast plus broccoli. But why should they be? I eat them in addition to chicken breast and broccoli (or the like) and within my calories.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
I'm just jumping in, but why would you leave out the micros? When people talk about eating an overall healthy diet, we are talking about hitting micros as well. I may be missing your point so just looking for clarification.
But using your example....there is no question that one has a better nutritional profile. No one would argue that. The issue is that "IF" you hit all of your micro needs and Fat and protein needs through out the day....and you still have calories left over....(I often have over 1000 calories left for the day after everything has been met) - how is that twinkie harmful to me if I eat with 1000 calories remaining for the day. How would the same amount of calories from broccoli be better since I would just be peeing out the nutrients anyway?accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
The fact that it was post Number 1 of this user should have clued people (not necessarily your post) in that this person isn't one of the 'initiated'!lemurcat12 wrote: »Midwestwineguy wrote: »I'll look elsewhere other than this online community for support and friendly interaction from now on.
Why is questioning whether the issue is "processing," a term that is misused quite often, unfriendly or unsupportive?
How were we supposed to know you were seeking support or even feeling proud? Your post was about feeling bad.
I wasn't putting you down by asking what you meant by "processed." I was trying to clarify what you were saying. Look, I get that putting people right about all kinds of preconceptions they have about their diet, different foods etc is part of what this forum is about, but I definitely read a whole bunch of fairly aggressively worded take-downs on a simple original post. Sure, they didn't specifically say 'support me', but really, did they have to?
Whilst parts of this forum are populated by amazingly supportive people, with encouraging stories and experiences to share, and advice to give, other parts seem to be populated by the Thought and Word Police where, if an uninitiated person uses words like detox or processed mistakenly, they can be shouted down for around 30 posts, before someone more reasonable steps in and checks exactly what the OP was asking! By which time, the poster has usually long abandoned the thread!
Spot on.
And the eventual denial of any intent to bash the use of a given term through the tired "I honestly just wanted you to define it" is particularly sad. It's clear that a productive conversation regarding the value of given foods isn't possible, because half of the participants are on a mission to destroy the idea as if driven by a divine mandate.
Helping people understand that an individual item of food, outside of the context of their overall diet, is neither good or bad, IS productive. Perpetuating the mindset that a singular food should or should not be consumed, based on a term or idea that cannot be defined or substantiated, is not productive. Every one of these divinely mandated participants you refer to fully advocate eating a well balanced, nutritious diet that fits within one's goals, and that it can be done without trying to define things within a label that can't be validated.
I'm not going to try to change your religion. If you want to believe that Twinkies and vegetables are dietary equals, go right ahead.
The contempt shown for anyone who disagrees is the problem. I choose to recognize that some foods are more valuable to my health. Why are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to argue that point every single time it arises?
Your problem is you assume anybody is claiming those 2 to be dietary equals. Never, not once, have I seen that. If you would open your mind to allow a logical discussion, one could be had. Answer this. If I, through the course of the day, have consumed a variety of foods such that I have met my macro AND micro nutrient needs, and have calories to spare, and want to eat something, what specific benefit do I receive by choosing more veggies over the Twinkie? Or, conversely, when my nutrient needs have been met, what harm does the Twinkie cause to my body or health? Substantiate your accusation, if you can. I encourage intelligent debate, but so far you have proven incapable.
Since I would make the exact same argument regarding your ability to substantiate your position, I'm happy to let you think whatever you wish.
At the end of the day, my viewpoint on health has been wildly successful for myself and many others. Your disagreement means nothing.
See, once again you choose not to engage. You accuse people of advocating an extreme that is blatantly untrue. I have never seen a person, a study, research, or anything else that shows evidence that, in the scenario I outlined, one is HEALTHIER than the other. I don't claim the Twinkie to be better in that context, but you distinctly claim the veggies to be more beneficial. Why?
I choose not to engage in fruitless conversations with individuals driven by dogma. I've read enough of your comments to realize that regardless of the information presented, you'll simply deflect and throw out strawmen.
But I digress... Let's talk apples to apples here, since all you (any other like-minded folk) want to do is bring up the IIFYM argument.
How would you evaluate the value of the foods below:
Twinkie
Cal - 150
Fat - 4.5g (2.5 sat)
Carb - 27g (28 sugar)
Protein - 1g
Yellow rice (.6 cup) & Avocado (30g)
Cal - 164
Fat - 5g (1 sat)
Carb - 29g (1g sugar)
Protein - 3g
I'd also list the micronutrient values, but frankly, it's embarrassing for the Twinkie. I know which of these choices holds a higher nutritional value, and that holds steady regardless of whether you're trying to hit a macro number or viewing them as foods independent of an individual person's dietary goals.
And with that, I'll wish you good luck on your health journey.
so all you eat is yellow rice all day? There are no other food choices besides yellow rice and twinkie?
If I need to list every single possible combination of foods that match the macro profile of a Twinkie for you to understand the point, you're not worth the effort.
the fact that you cannot grasp the concept of dietary concept confirms to me that your understanding of nutrition is extremely limited. I would suggest going back to the drawing board and reeducating yourself.
What if I eat twinkies and yellow rice and vegetables, do the twinkies make me unhealthy? Or does the vegetables and yellow rice cancel out the twinkies?
You're not following the conversation. Come back when you understand the context.
LOL that is all you got?
I understand context perfectly. So let me lay it out for you.
if my day is eggs, whole wheat toast, and bacon for breakfast; turkey on whole grain bread and cottage cheese for lunch; and for dinner I have chicken, rice, vegetables, and then I fill my the rest of my day in with some twinkies and ice cream and I hit my micro and macors, what would then be unhealthy about twinkies and ice cream in the context of that overall diet?
OR do you not understand what context of overall diet means? Google is wonderful for assisting with filling in the gaps in missing knowledge.
Given that exact scenario, which was precisely what I addressed, the rice/avocado example holds more nutritional value than the Twinkie, while meeting the same macro needs.
Again, read and comprehend before replying. I know you can't wait to get the snark out, but try next time.
no, you set up a false choice between twinkies and yellow rice...
and you can slip in all the insults you want, all that means is that you lack the tools to debate the issue and have to resort to name calling.
Wrong. I provided factual information, which you are now refusing to address.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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