CALORIE QUALITY
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
A sugar crash is when you are out cycling for over four hours and you are so busy trying to squeeze a glucose/fructose carb gel down your throat you fall off your bike.
0 -
I_Will_End_You wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Were the macros the same? If so, I'd think they'd be about equal.
Given the list of foods their macros would not be equal0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I_Will_End_You wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Were the macros the same? If so, I'd think they'd be about equal.
Given the list of foods their macros would not be equal
"Fast food" is a really broad category. You could probably hit a wide range of macros if it was one of the three things that you ate, given that you can choose options that are lower in carbohydrates or fat.0 -
shrinkingletters wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Perform how?
well in that case, I say B but only if he has left over ice cream. because then I will be happy too
Personally, I'd go for pie, but ice cream is good.
ice cream pie?
0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I always define junk food as food that is high in calories but has little to no nutritional value. That doesn't stop me from eating said foods, but I understand that I'm getting no nutritional benefit from them so I shouldn't make all my meals with it. Yes, you can eat all junk food and hit your calorie goal, but if you go by that definition, you get almost no nutrition out of it. No vitamins or minerals or other things your body needs to function properly. It is the balance of what you eat that matters for health reasons, but I think the initial comment was about just the calories, not the nutritional content of food.0 -
Some people get so worked up others eating things that give them pleasure in the context of a balanced diet. It's so puritanical. They'd love to brand them with a scarlet S for having a cookie.0
-
Could you explain what you mean by "justify"? I'm NOT picking on grammar - I'd be the last one to do so as mine is often just about as bad as it can be. I'm not picking on diction! I just truly don't understand what you mean there and am trying to clarify.
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I'm not hung up on words like "healthy, junk, clean," etc. I don't care who uses what words.
As you know, since we've discussed it before, I do believe that some foods are bad for us. I do not believe that a carrot will undo the trans fats in something else. I also know that you do not believe that some foods are bad for us, but that if your overall diet is good, no food can be harmful.
We have disagreed about this before, so it's clear that we disagree. There is really no reason to go over it all again, IMO.
You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine.
0 -
Double posted.0
-
Some people get so worked up others eating things that give them pleasure in the context of a balanced diet. It's so puritanical. They'd love to brand them with a scarlet S for having a cookie.
Not me! I enjoy many foods. I'm every bit as delighted to eat a bowl of fruit as almost any cookie. No Ss here.
I sure hope that you don't think everyone who chooses, say, fruit, over a cookie derives no pleasure from the fruit. I eat many, many very tasty things that are also healthy.
Furthermore, I support the choice to eat cookies and wouldn't label anyone as anything because they choose to eat them. Nor do I think that eating or not eating a cookie has anything to do with what kind of a person one is.
I have known and loved people who ate nothing that was good for them. The smartest, kindest, funniest, most honest and generous person I've ever known almost never ate anything that was good for him. When he'd tease me about cooking possum and eating rabbit food, I'd tease back and say, "I know, you don't like the healthy food. And you've got the heart attacks to prove it!" And we were still best friends.
I don't know why anyone makes judgements about others based on their diet. Small minds, I guess. But the, "My WOE is better than your WOE" is ridiculous.0 -
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I always define junk food as food that is high in calories but has little to no nutritional value.
Yeah, I was going to say that, but then saw you had already, so figured I'd just jump on your post.
I get why people find "junk food" negative or worry that it plays into the "bad foods" thing and takes the focus off overall diet, but to me it's a slangy term that is well understood, even if we might disagree about what has little to no nutritional value, as it's context dependent. (For example, I would usually consider Gatorade to be "junk food," but I drank some--rather than my usual water--during the run portion of an Olympic tri a few weekends ago, as I'd not eaten anything else since a few hours before starting the race, and it really helped me. So in that context it had huge nutritional value.)
What puzzles me, though, is OP's initial assumption that "junk food" includes "processed foods" (an Amy's Light and Lean is neither calorie dense nor low nutrient, and same for Fage 0% greek yogurt or some smoked salmon or canned tomatoes). I would also take issue with the inclusion of pizza--plenty of pizza will have lots of nutrients and not be especially high calorie. For example, I usually get a thin crust with lots of vegetables, olive oil, some leaner meat if possible, from this Italian place we like. If I make it at home it's even more nutrient dense and has fewer calories. Heck, even on the rare occasion I get Chicago style I like to include spinach and mushrooms and the like.
OP seems into the black and white (or good vs. bad) view of the world. If you like ice cream on occasion, well, you eat nothing but JUNK!0 -
Could you explain what you mean by "justify"? I'm NOT picking on grammar - I'd be the last one to do so as mine is often just about as bad as it can be. I'm not picking on diction! I just truly don't understand what you mean there and am trying to clarify.
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I'm not hung up on words like "healthy, junk, clean," etc. I don't care who uses what words.
As you know, since we've discussed it before, I do believe that some foods are bad for us. I do not believe that a carrot will undo the trans fats in something else. I also know that you do not believe that some foods are bad for us, but that if your overall diet is good, no food can be harmful.
We have disagreed about this before, so it's clear that we disagree. There is really no reason to go over it all again, IMO.
You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.0 -
We all use words. Using words isn't the same thing as being hung up on them. I don't care who uses what words. You seem much more hung up on the words than I am.
Could you explain what you mean by "justify"? I'm NOT picking on grammar - I'd be the last one to do so as mine is often just about as bad as it can be. I'm not picking on diction! I just truly don't understand what you mean there and am trying to clarify.
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I'm not hung up on words like "healthy, junk, clean," etc. I don't care who uses what words.
As you know, since we've discussed it before, I do believe that some foods are bad for us. I do not believe that a carrot will undo the trans fats in something else. I also know that you do not believe that some foods are bad for us, but that if your overall diet is good, no food can be harmful.
We have disagreed about this before, so it's clear that we disagree. There is really no reason to go over it all again, IMO.
You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I don't say people should eat healthy. I think I should, but I truly do not care who eats what and don't judge a person by their diet. That's just silly.
As I said, I know you disagree with me about some foods being bad for us. It's cool. We disagree. It's not the end of the world.
I will not justify my diction, lol.0 -
Some people get so worked up others eating things that give them pleasure in the context of a balanced diet. It's so puritanical. They'd love to brand them with a scarlet S for having a cookie.
Not me! I enjoy many foods. I'm every bit as delighted to eat a bowl of fruit as almost any cookie. No Ss here.
I sure hope that you don't think everyone who chooses, say, fruit, over a cookie derives no pleasure from the fruit. I eat many, many very tasty things that are also healthy.
Furthermore, I support the choice to eat cookies and wouldn't label anyone as anything because they choose to eat them. Nor do I think that eating or not eating a cookie has anything to do with what kind of a person one is.
I have known and loved people who ate nothing that was good for them. The smartest, kindest, funniest, most honest and generous person I've ever known almost never ate anything that was good for him. When he'd tease me about cooking possum and eating rabbit food, I'd tease back and say, "I know, you don't like the healthy food. And you've got the heart attacks to prove it!" And we were still best friends.
I don't know why anyone makes judgements about others based on their diet. Small minds, I guess. But the, "My WOE is better than your WOE" is ridiculous.
0 -
The Cookie Monster was the first against the wall when the Revolution came. They sent him to a reeducation camp and made him do propaganda films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH9IO6iMO78
0 -
Could you explain what you mean by "justify"? I'm NOT picking on grammar - I'd be the last one to do so as mine is often just about as bad as it can be. I'm not picking on diction! I just truly don't understand what you mean there and am trying to clarify.
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I'm not hung up on words like "healthy, junk, clean," etc. I don't care who uses what words.
As you know, since we've discussed it before, I do believe that some foods are bad for us. I do not believe that a carrot will undo the trans fats in something else. I also know that you do not believe that some foods are bad for us, but that if your overall diet is good, no food can be harmful.
We have disagreed about this before, so it's clear that we disagree. There is really no reason to go over it all again, IMO.
You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Beautifully put, as always. I get just as much pleasure out of my bowl of cottage cheese and veggies (with ALL the sriracha) as I do a bowl of ice cream. I incorporate ALL the foods I like for health and pleasure.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
The poster didn't say eating junk food is required for sanity. He said that one way to maintain sanity (which I read as simply a more colorful way of saying have a more pleasant time of it and make the diet sustainable) is to eat foods you love. Personally, if I ate only boneless, skinless chicken breast for protein I MIGHT lose it (and don't get me started on canned tuna or tilapia, as I don't like either). So I incorporate tuna steak, roasted chicken with skin and bones, steak, salmon, etc. I also incorporate other foods I love and have no reason to give up, like cheese and ice cream.
If there were some reason for me to give them up of course I could (my dad gave up steak--well, mostly--and is fine), but barring such a reason why make it harder than you need?
If it's easier for you (the general you) to be more restrictive, by all means do that, but don't pretend--like OP--that that makes your diet more healthy or virtuous than those who make different decisions based on what seems just as healthy and more pleasurable to them. Pleasure is not a bad thing, and probably does contribute to overall quality of life (although if one must restrict it's nice that there are many sources of pleasure).
Beautifully put, as always. I get just as much pleasure out of my bowl of cottage cheese and veggies (with ALL the sriracha) as I do a bowl of ice cream. I incorporate ALL the foods I like for health and pleasure.
Cottage cheese, veggies, and sriracha ARE all delicious. I may have to try them together. For a while my nightly snack (in lieu of ice cream) was cottage cheese and pepperoncinis (which I like to eat on their own--a co-worker told me this was weird when I ate one off of a salad not long ago, but I love them so).0 -
Could you explain what you mean by "justify"? I'm NOT picking on grammar - I'd be the last one to do so as mine is often just about as bad as it can be. I'm not picking on diction! I just truly don't understand what you mean there and am trying to clarify.
This idea that junk food is required in a diet because excluding it makes binging a foregone conclusion...it's so very wrong.snickerscharlie wrote: »3stepsahead wrote: »Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.
Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.
After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
Guy B because he will have lost weight.
Guy A gave up on his restrictive diet and binged, went waaay over on his calories and actually *gained* weight.
Moderation is key. Incorporating some of the foods you love into your daily 'budget' is the way most people manage to lose weight, stay healthy *and* keep their sanity. It's a balance.
The idea that a person who doesn't eat junk food is insane...it's not just wrong, it's a little over the top.
One can eat healthy foods, not binge and remain sane. I swear. People have done it.
You really don't have to eat junk food to lose weight.
It doesn't really justify to call any food 'junk food'. If a person it eating a well-balanced diet, and wants to have some chips, and is still within a calorie deficit, that's just fine. And healthy.
Why do people (a lot of people) get hung up on the terms 'healthy food' and 'junk food'? It's not the food that makes it healthy or unhealthy. It's the balance of food, and the amount of calories consumed, that can make the person unhealthy. The food is neither healthy nor unhealthy.
I'm not hung up on words like "healthy, junk, clean," etc. I don't care who uses what words.
As you know, since we've discussed it before, I do believe that some foods are bad for us. I do not believe that a carrot will undo the trans fats in something else. I also know that you do not believe that some foods are bad for us, but that if your overall diet is good, no food can be harmful.
We have disagreed about this before, so it's clear that we disagree. There is really no reason to go over it all again, IMO.
You're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine.
It's clear what I meant, reading the post, I think. I meant it's not justified to use like 'junk' to describe food. Your post used the words 'junk food' and 'healthy food', so to say you aren't hung up on them is a bit.... odd, when you just finished say people should eat healthy and not eat junk.
As I said, if people are eating a well-balanced diet, eating a food that might be labeled by some as 'bad' isn't going to make a person unhealthy. I know I'm not the only person here (as I've discussed with many others who do the same as I do) who have excellent numbers at the doctor. I eat a well-balanced diet and I eat things like cookies and chips and ice cream in moderation regularly. I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, all my blood work is good, and my body fat is 17%. I'm in excellent cardiac health. Food isn't the problem and labeling is dangerous. It's misleading to people who are learning how to eat correctly and lose weight.
I agree labeling food is dangerous. I don't think any food is evil, and if someone wants their diet to be all hamburgers and candy, that's their deal. But I do still call some things 'junk food' because that defines the category they fall into: high calorie, little to no nutrition. I would never say don't eat junk food! Be kinda hypocritical seeing as how much ends up in my diet! XD But that category of food is one you don't want to base your whole diet on. Think of the food pyramid: you have your basic food groups and you should have some of all of them every day to get the nutrition your body needs. Junk food is a different type of food group, and adding it to your diet is perfectly fine. I don't term it 'evil' or 'to be avoided' because food is food. It's not it can make it's own moral choices after all. But you have to balance your food groups to be healthy, which can mean cutting back on less nutritional choices for ones that are better for your body. The whole point is MODERATION, which is what so many people don't see in what a lot of people here say. I see a lot of these types of posts, and they tend to look at food as black and white: eat this, never eat this. If that works for you, fine, but most people will do just fine with eating less 'junk food' and more from the groups with better nutrition, not just cutting out all 'junk food'.
As in what?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions