I called oatmeal cookies unhealthy and I got blasted - why?

Serah87 wrote: »

lovellm122 wrote: »

CharonCharon wrote: »

I stated they had butter, white sugar, flour, chocolate chips, ect.
I consider all these things unhealthy.
But a couple of people say everything is healthy.
Is my wording wrong?
What would be unhealthy to those people in a cookie?

BTW - I like to eat in volumes.
I have never been able to do portion control in my entire life.
Oatmeal is a food I can eat and be full and be happy without guilt.

I always get blasted also when i mention 'clean' eating and avoiding stuff like you mention. Seems everyone loves IIFYM (which i think is rubbish)

Do you even understand how IIFYM works?? Basically 80 to 90% healthy and 10 to 20% treats, etc.

lovellm122 wrote: »

20% treats isnt for me lol

I follow IIFYM and I don't eat 20% treats. I rarely have a treat (except my one glass of wine in the evening). The beauty of IIFYM is that you eat however you feel the best, as long as your hit your macro targets. I choose to do it with mostly (probably 95%) nutrient dense whole foods. When i reach my goal and go into maintenance, I probably will be able to work more treats in. Of course for me, treats include things like nuts, peanut butter, etc.

lovellm122 wrote: »

1) Honestly didnt intend/feel 'high might attitude. /sarcasm'. Was being genuine and honest.
2) Didnt mean to rustle any jimmies. (Ya dont have to act hard)
3) 'I surpassed those numbers', well done (srs)
4) The info i got on IIFYM was from the shredded 200 pound+ guys

I don't think your intent matters in the least. The fact is you think differently than they so naturally your way is totally wrong and you must have a good ol' beat down until you surrender and think like them!

diannethegeek wrote: »

cindyangotti wrote: »

lovellm122 wrote: »

1) Honestly didnt intend/feel 'high might attitude. /sarcasm'. Was being genuine and honest.
2) Didnt mean to rustle any jimmies. (Ya dont have to act hard)
3) 'I surpassed those numbers', well done (srs)
4) The info i got on IIFYM was from the shredded 200 pound+ guys

I don't think your intent matters in the least. The fact is you think differently than they so naturally your way is totally wrong and you must have a good ol' beat down until you surrender and think like them!

That's just a wee bit hyperbolic, isn't it?

Hahahaha sure, whatever you say! lol

cindyangotti wrote: »

lovellm122 wrote: »

1) Honestly didnt intend/feel 'high might attitude. /sarcasm'. Was being genuine and honest.
2) Didnt mean to rustle any jimmies. (Ya dont have to act hard)
3) 'I surpassed those numbers', well done (srs)
4) The info i got on IIFYM was from the shredded 200 pound+ guys

I don't think your intent matters in the least. The fact is you think differently than they so naturally your way is totally wrong and you must have a good ol' beat down until you surrender and think like them!

I got their system wrong; my view on it was not correct. They decided to tell me by acting hard and using insults. funny how ppl talk to each other on the internet and completely different in real life.

cindyangotti wrote: »

lovellm122 wrote: »

1) Honestly didnt intend/feel 'high might attitude. /sarcasm'. Was being genuine and honest.
2) Didnt mean to rustle any jimmies. (Ya dont have to act hard)
3) 'I surpassed those numbers', well done (srs)
4) The info i got on IIFYM was from the shredded 200 pound+ guys

I don't think your intent matters in the least. The fact is you think differently than they so naturally your way is totally wrong and you must have a good ol' beat down until you surrender and think like them!

I'm pretty much a whole foods advocate and don't eat much in the way of typical junk...it's still IIFYM...the problem is complete ignorance of the term and concept...thanks for playing though.

most people would consider my diet to be pretty "clean" certainly by SAD standards...tracking your macros has nothing to do with that...you can low carb and still track your macros....you can eat "clean" and still manage your macros...you can do any dietary plan imaginable and still manage your macros...which would be IIFYM...

again...ignorance.

lovellm122 wrote: »

cindyangotti wrote: »

lovellm122 wrote: »

1) Honestly didnt intend/feel 'high might attitude. /sarcasm'. Was being genuine and honest.
2) Didnt mean to rustle any jimmies. (Ya dont have to act hard)
3) 'I surpassed those numbers', well done (srs)
4) The info i got on IIFYM was from the shredded 200 pound+ guys

I don't think your intent matters in the least. The fact is you think differently than they so naturally your way is totally wrong and you must have a good ol' beat down until you surrender and think like them!

I got their system wrong; my view on it was not correct. They decided to tell me by acting hard and using insults. funny how ppl talk to each other on the internet and completely different in real life.

you should start one of those mean people threads...that would be epic...

lovellm122 wrote: »

LOL. I'm not gonna get deep into it guys. If you wanna follow that system and it works well for you's and your happy then carry on making the great progress .... My personal opinion is that we should try and achieve our daily calorie limit and macros from the 'healthiest' sources of produce. Whats better for your body, heart, overall wellbeing, getting your macros from skinless chicken, tuna, spinach, salad, turkey, beets, broccoli; or cake, pizza, chocolate, cheese burgers, pop tarts etc? Its just my belief and its worked more than well for me. dropped 49 pounds of fat within the last 5 months and put 7 pounds of muscle on. I just dont believe in IIFYM or cheat meals and stuff like that. But if it works well for ppl and they are happy then carry on

IIFYM just means that you focus on getting your macros and micros. If you also want to go beyond that and get the macros solely from nutrient dense foods, that's not inconsistent with IIFYM. Personally, I have my own rules, like that I eat lots of vegetables with every meal (unless there's some reason I cannot). This is not required for IIFYM, but it's not inconsistent with it.

Similarly, as I understand "clean eating," it doesn't mean getting the most nutritious foods you can, but avoiding "processed" foods. Some quite nutritious foods (smoked salmon, as that's one I use to meet my protein macro by including it at breakfast) are processed. Indeed, a "clean eater" who is honest should eschew the boneless skinless chicken breast for whole chicken, as that's much less processed.

(I also like it better, but I eat both.)

Anyway, your "what's better" is a false dichotomy, as few people do one or the other (if you prefer to, that's great, I simply will not agree it's more healthy than including some lower nutrient extras too). I try to mostly focus on nutrient dense foods, but I usually have extra calories and while I sometimes use them for fruit or more fish, I also sometimes use them for cheese or ice cream or high quality chocolate, and see no reason why that would make my diet less healthy.

However, I obviously don't think others need to make the same choices I do. That's never the point of this and anyone claiming it is would be lying.

I pay attention to my macros to make sure I get enough protein. I also avoid foods like margarine when I can eat more 'natural' ones like butter, but that's mainly due to personal taste. But I really came back here to say this thread has actually made me bake oatmeal cookies.

UltimateRBF wrote: »

Moving on, what oatmeal cookie recipes do you guys use? I now want to make some and I don't have a good recipe. I like chewy/soft cookies.

No banana or applesauce.

In for recipes as well!