clean eating but not meeting guidelines
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.0 -
Did OP ever come back to provide more details?
0 -
If by "research" you mean "people observed that the bottom parts of objects moving away from them disappeared before the top parts, rather than all of the object fading from view simultaneously" then, yeah, "research" brought us that knowledge.Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
0 -
kristen6350 wrote: »No such thing as a bad carb. But if I were you I'd try and up my protein, just for satitey. Fruit won't keep you full. Almonds or greek yogurt tends to do more to keep you satisified.
There are nutrient dense carbs and carbs that have few nutrients. People need to recognize this fact and adjust their intake accordingly.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Eating nutrient dense foods is GREAT. Definitely good to choose more nutrient dense, high fiber carbs than nutrient poor low fiber carbs (boy that's a mouthful, too bad there's not an easier way to say all that lol).
That said, if meeting your macros is important to you, then eat more protein and fat. Add some avocado instead of traditional fruits (since avocado is a fruit). Add some nuts. Find more protein sources. Or, if you feel like you're getting enough protein, don't sweat it.
But good job building your diet around nutrient dense foods!
That's my answer.
Personally, I eat a lot of fruit, so my sugar number is high. I don't even look at it any longer. I eat a lot of veggies, too, so with both of them, my carbs are way high. I don't care about meeting the macro numbers, so it works for me.
0 -
Crazy talk. Straight up.Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.0 -
*ahem*
OP a couple pages back you asked if you were keeping to a fairly "whole food" diet and close to your calorie goal, how can your macros be unbalanced? As a person with diabetic training I can answer that.
Besides their relative refinement or otherwise, and their relative calories, different foods have different macro ratios. Take the potato, bald. It is mostly carb. Add cheese and you have fat and a little protein. Add chilli on top and you have even more protein. The potato, beans and tomato all contribute fiber as well.
I was trained to get as many macros, balanced, in every meal. When I balance my macros in every meal they will even out, fairly well, at the end of the day.
You will lose weight, regardless of the macro balance and regardless of the "wholeness" of the foods, if you stick fairly close to the calorie goal.
If you eat potatoes, bald, all day, your macros will be unbalanced. Depending how many you ate will determine if you went over on your calories. It will be a "whole food" day.
Well said. The potato-plus-toppings example is very helpful!
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
I'm 59 and haven't been overweight. I would also consider that success.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Did OP ever come back to provide more details?
Why would she? This thread is no longer about her question.0 -
Because she couldn't know what's been posted unless she came back and providing more details would make it about her question.WinoGelato wrote: »Did OP ever come back to provide more details?
Why would she? This thread is no longer about her question.
0 -
1200 calories in my personal opinion would make it difficult to be healthy if your exercising too! Unless your 4ft 10!0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
You have a wee too much faith in our government. I have more success lurking in these threads and learning what works and what does not. You know, the successful. Yay me!!
0 -
The problem with personal testimonials as that their success may not translate to your situation. It's evidence of one. I'm a success. I did it by following conventional advice;The Canada Food Guide.Packerjohn wrote: »Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Did OP ever come back to provide more details?
Why would she? This thread is no longer about her question.
Hard to make it about her question when her question didn't provide enough relevant details to begin with. People have to make guesses as to what she means when she says her macros are off before lunch and dinner and that she is over 1200 even though she's exercising.
Not to mention the use of the nebulous and polarizing term "clean eating" brings out many opinions.
OP if you are still reading along, giving us more details about what your day looks like, what macro ratios you are striving for, how many pounds you're trying to lose, are you eating back exercise calories, etc might help get the discussion back on topic and become helpful for you.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Perhaps you could explain how kommodevan's isn't good, then.
Seems to me it would accomplish what Gianfranco's does, whereas his might not accomplish everything kommodevan's does. The gov't guidelines are supposed to be simple ways to help people improve their diets, and they are sensible enough, but they don't account for everything important.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Did OP ever come back to provide more details?
Why would she? This thread is no longer about her question.
A number of us addressed her question and asked follow up questions.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Different horses for different courses. There are government dietary recommendations like limit refined grains, limit added sugars, and eat at least 5 fruits and veggies. They're generally simplified and easy to act upon suggestions that lead towards eating patterns that naturally and with little effort lead to results similar to kommodevaran's own hierarchy.
I'd say kommodevaran's hierarchy is better, but it does have the caveat that it requires a deeper understanding of nutrition and more attention paid to specifics of food (tracking calories, macros, etc) to accomplish.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?0 -
Bazinga0
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?
I would also point out that for many of us, simply "not being overweight" is not the pinnacle of our health and fitness goals.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?
That's what happens when you eat healthy and exercise: you don't even gain in the first place.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?
That's what happens when you eat healthy and exercise: you don't even gain in the first place.
Thanks. Given I've been overweight since about age 1 when it wasn't about my decisions, I don't see how such condescension would have prevented me from ever needing to lose weight, but please continue to feel superior about accomplishing what is, by the numbers, easier to do - the focus for many health care professionals now is avoiding weight gain because so many consider it a far easier goal to accomplish.
And assuming eating healthy includes weight as a measure of health, your statement is circular definition that could be replaced with "if you don't gain weight, you don't even gain weight in the first place".0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?
That's what happens when you eat healthy and exercise: you don't even gain in the first place.
So never been overweight
Never lost weight
What brought you to this board? You must have had a goal0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »delsey2007 wrote: »I am eating foods that are as close to whole and unprocessed as possible but it just frustrates me because I'm STILL over 1200 calories and my macros are off. I'm even exercising. So what the heck?
I gained most of my weight when I was eating a diet that was mostly based on whole foods and cooking from scratch. It's not hard to do, for some of us. So if you want to lower calories (or carbs) or adjust your macros, look at the days you have logged (the whole day) and see where the calories and macros are coming from an make changes as necessary.
But also consider that you may not need to eat so low as 1200, and that if you are exercising you probably should not, but should add back some calories.
What are your goals and what is your average day?
I work a desk job 7-3, try to walk at least a mile, eat dinner... It's pretty much the same every day.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark?Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given time.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
That's why I am asking for clarification!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Plus, where have I said cake is an unhealthy option???????
A few quotes up you said:
"Absolutely not. Cake doesn't make it on my healthier food choice list." ?
I did say that. But how does that translate to unhealthy??
No carbs (excessive portions aside) are unhealthy. Therefore it stands to reason that the baseline is 'healthy' and the more micro nutrition a carb can deliver is a healthier choice.
I hope that has cleared up my meaning of healthier carbs for you and others.
I'm sure you are in agreement that some carbs (foods made up from carbs) are in fact healthier than others, or do you dispute this - I would be interested to know?
You dispute that some carbs are healthier than others????
So just to clarify - you believe all carbs 'gram for gram' offer the exact same level of health benefits?
Well there's your problem understanding my comments earlier right there.
If you are disputing that some carbs are healthier than others - surely it's the only other view point???
Either some carbs are healthier than other or they are not (and therefore all equal)!
Maybe you can explain your view point to clear up any misunderstanding!
If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.
So, no, your dichotomy is false. Today, broccoli may be the better choice than a kolache. Tomorrow, it may not be.
Also if you don't follow overly restrictive diets, but just stick with the widely accepted dietary recommendations, you need a hierarchy of choices to draw a healthy "context".
-eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day
-limit refined grains to no more than 50% of total grain intake
-limit added/free sugar to no more than 10% of total calorie intake.
You can certainly make room for kolache in your diet, but there are healthier choices, you have to give the priority first.
I would say the hierarcy is more like this:
Appropriate number of calories.
Safe food.
Enough fat and protein.
Enough micronutrients.
Fiber.
Varied food.
Tasty food.
Exciting food.
I'm pretty sure Gainfranco-r's hierarchy is from a government website developed by professionals. This should trump the opinion of a random person on a forum.
Your faith in government professionals is touching.
Sure government research changes. Remember research brought us the news the earth is round. Personally I would rather look at the advice provided by trained professionals in nutrition.
I'd rather take the advice of people who have shown a history of success.
well, I'm 47 and I've never been overweight. Not ever a single gram. That's success, in my book.
So admittedly, you've never been successful at losing weight, at least any substantial amount of weight?
That's what happens when you eat healthy and exercise: you don't even gain in the first place.
So never been overweight
Never lost weight
What brought you to this board? You must have had a goal
I'm not "naturally thin" and to not gain weight requires effort. Till 2013 I controlled my weight mostly by exercising (running). Then, due to various injuries, I couldn't work out and I was compelled to start "dieting". Currently I'm trying to gain some muscles/recomp.0 -
delsey2007 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »delsey2007 wrote: »I am eating foods that are as close to whole and unprocessed as possible but it just frustrates me because I'm STILL over 1200 calories and my macros are off. I'm even exercising. So what the heck?
I gained most of my weight when I was eating a diet that was mostly based on whole foods and cooking from scratch. It's not hard to do, for some of us. So if you want to lower calories (or carbs) or adjust your macros, look at the days you have logged (the whole day) and see where the calories and macros are coming from an make changes as necessary.
But also consider that you may not need to eat so low as 1200, and that if you are exercising you probably should not, but should add back some calories.
What are your goals and what is your average day?
I work a desk job 7-3, try to walk at least a mile, eat dinner... It's pretty much the same every day.
Your profile says you are 5'7, weigh about 150 and want to lose about 40 lbs, is that right? That would put you at underweight for your height. What did you put in for your rate of loss - 2 lbs/week?
You said before your macros were out of balance - what macro breakdowns are you trying to achieve with your 1200 cals? Also you said you are eating foods that are whole and unprocessed but you are over 1200 cals - how far over? Are you weighing and measuring your foods? Are you eating back exercise cals - which should give you more than 1200 cals (which is likely too low to begin with for a 23 year old 5'7 female).
More information about what you are eating each day, or ideally opening up your diary, would enable people to give you better advice.
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