Is there such thing as good and bad calories?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
botanically, yes...but I don't think too many people are referring to eating their fruit and veg are also referring to eating legumes and nuts, etc...from a dietary standpoint people are going to tend to think of those things differently. I'll bet you money the OP isn't talking about grains and nuts and beans or seed when talking about eating nothing but fruits and veg.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
That's not normally what people mean when they say "I'm only eating fruits and vegetables." They mean what we culinarily call fruit and vegetables (specifically, cucumbers aren't culinarily a fruit, but a vegetable, and vegetables refer specifically to non starchy vegetables). In other words, they mean the foods that meet the "at least 5-9 servings per day" recommendation or would be put in the "fruits and vegetables" part of my plate or the old food pyramid.
They don't mean simply "I'm eating a plant-based diet" or "I'm going vegan."
But of course you knew that. ;-)
No, I didn't (don't). I've never heard anyone not consider beans a vegetable and they do contribute to servings of vegetables.
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2000/document/build.htm
Dry beans, peas, and lentils can be counted as servings in either the meat and beans group or the vegetable group. As a vegetable, 1/2 cup of cooked, dry beans counts as 1 serving. As a meat substitute, 1 cup of cooked, dry beans counts as 1 serving (2 ounces of meat).0 -
I'm definitely having my bread as vegetables tonight. Or maybe oatmeal; vegetable of choice.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
That's not normally what people mean when they say "I'm only eating fruits and vegetables." They mean what we culinarily call fruit and vegetables (specifically, cucumbers aren't culinarily a fruit, but a vegetable, and vegetables refer specifically to non starchy vegetables). In other words, they mean the foods that meet the "at least 5-9 servings per day" recommendation or would be put in the "fruits and vegetables" part of my plate or the old food pyramid.
They don't mean simply "I'm eating a plant-based diet" or "I'm going vegan."
But of course you knew that. ;-)
No, I didn't (don't). I've never heard anyone not consider beans a vegetable and they do contribute to servings of vegetables.
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2000/document/build.htm
Dry beans, peas, and lentils can be counted as servings in either the meat and beans group or the vegetable group. As a vegetable, 1/2 cup of cooked, dry beans counts as 1 serving. As a meat substitute, 1 cup of cooked, dry beans counts as 1 serving (2 ounces of meat).
Interesting, but from a meal planning or culinary standpoint I've never seen anyone count pasta or even beans or potatoes as a "vegetable" and I certainly wouldn't count them toward the 5-9 per day. (Same with corn, but lots of people seem not to understand that corn is a grain.)
When someone says "I'm doing only fruit and veg" I definitely do understand them to be cutting out starches/legumes/nuts as well as meat.0 -
(Also, of course, it was clear that's how janejellyroll was understanding it, as she said so, and she's a vegan so was hardly likely to be saying one couldn't have a plant-based diet that is healthy.)0
-
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
That's not normally what people mean when they say "I'm only eating fruits and vegetables." They mean what we culinarily call fruit and vegetables (specifically, cucumbers aren't culinarily a fruit, but a vegetable, and vegetables refer specifically to non starchy vegetables). In other words, they mean the foods that meet the "at least 5-9 servings per day" recommendation or would be put in the "fruits and vegetables" part of my plate or the old food pyramid.
They don't mean simply "I'm eating a plant-based diet" or "I'm going vegan."
But of course you knew that. ;-)
No, I didn't (don't). I've never heard anyone not consider beans a vegetable and they do contribute to servings of vegetables.
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2000/document/build.htm
Dry beans, peas, and lentils can be counted as servings in either the meat and beans group or the vegetable group. As a vegetable, 1/2 cup of cooked, dry beans counts as 1 serving. As a meat substitute, 1 cup of cooked, dry beans counts as 1 serving (2 ounces of meat).
Interesting, but from a meal planning or culinary standpoint I've never seen anyone count pasta or even beans or potatoes as a "vegetable" and I certainly wouldn't count them toward the 5-9 per day. (Same with corn, but lots of people seem not to understand that corn is a grain.)
When someone says "I'm doing only fruit and veg" I definitely do understand them to be cutting out starches/legumes/nuts as well as meat.
I do not. I would think they were talking vegan.
But maybe it's the gardener in me. If I can grow it from the ground, it's a fruit/veg to me.
EDIT: I can see nuts and grains not being thought of, but beans would never have occurred to me as not being a vegetable. Even though they are technically a fruit.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
In the specific case of those raw vegans who argue that all one needs are fruits and vegetables, they ARE specifically excluding beans, grains, nuts, and seeds. Which is why I noted that above.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »(Also, of course, it was clear that's how janejellyroll was understanding it, as she said so, and she's a vegan so was hardly likely to be saying one couldn't have a plant-based diet that is healthy.)
You're absolutely right, I would never argue that. Which is why, several posts ago, I specified those who use "fruits and vegetables" while excluding beans and grains.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.
I saw it. What deficiencies?
The two already mentioned were B12 and protein. With only fruits and vegetables (which would rule out nuts and legumes), both of those would be very difficult to hit recommended levels.
You are moving the goal post by excluding certain fruits and vegetables.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-blog/fruit-vegetable-difference/bgp-20056141
According to botanists (those who study plants) a fruit is the part of the plant that develops from a flower. It's also the section of the plant that contains the seeds. The other parts of plants are considered vegetables. These include the stems, leaves and roots — and even the flower bud.
The following are technically fruits: avocado, beans, peapods, corn kernels, cucumbers, grains, nuts, olives peppers, pumpkin, squash, sunflower seeds and tomatoes. Vegetables include celery (stem), lettuce (leaves), cauliflower and broccoli (buds), and beets, carrots and potatoes (roots).
The definition says the part that contains the seed, but a bean is the seed, so wouldn't that technically be different from "the thing that contains the seed"?0 -
This is an age old question and it need not be. For weight loss, only calories matter. For health, micro nutrients have an enormous impact.
So eating a 400 calorie salad won't help you lose weight any faster than eating 400 calories of potato chips, but it will (over the long term) be FAR better for your health (blood pressure, heart health, etc + a lot more depending on what is on the salad). And you will FEEL a lot better, be far more satiated at any point, etc.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
In the specific case of those raw vegans who argue that all one needs are fruits and vegetables, they ARE specifically excluding beans, grains, nuts, and seeds. Which is why I noted that above.
Ya, the vegans I used to lived with used to think of all these things separately - fruits, vegetables, beans, grains, nuts, and seeds.
When several of them attempted going raw, they did continue to eat legumes, but they sprouted them. Possibly grains as well. They gave raw up when the weather got cold.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.
I saw it. What deficiencies?
The two already mentioned were B12 and protein. With only fruits and vegetables (which would rule out nuts and legumes), both of those would be very difficult to hit recommended levels.
You are moving the goal post by excluding certain fruits and vegetables.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-blog/fruit-vegetable-difference/bgp-20056141
According to botanists (those who study plants) a fruit is the part of the plant that develops from a flower. It's also the section of the plant that contains the seeds. The other parts of plants are considered vegetables. These include the stems, leaves and roots — and even the flower bud.
The following are technically fruits: avocado, beans, peapods, corn kernels, cucumbers, grains, nuts, olives peppers, pumpkin, squash, sunflower seeds and tomatoes. Vegetables include celery (stem), lettuce (leaves), cauliflower and broccoli (buds), and beets, carrots and potatoes (roots).
The definition says the part that contains the seed, but a bean is the seed, so wouldn't that technically be different from "the thing that contains the seed"?
I've never seen that distinction made, but I'm not a botanist.
This reference says nuts are "dry, indehiscent fruits with a hard, stony wall".
http://www.biologyreference.com/Fo-Gr/Fruits.html
EDIT: But maybe the Botany Professor has it nailed
So, from a botanical perspective, you can use the word vegetable in almost any way you want in reference to the parts of a plant, and so it becomes irrelevant nutritionally unless carefully qualified.
http://botanyprofessor.blogspot.com/2011/11/whatis-vegetable.html0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »CamillaEdwards wrote: »For example if I ate 1,200 calories of chocolate would I loose weight a lot lower than if I ate 1,200 calories of something healthy like fruit and vegetables? I mostly eat healthily but have had a few weeks of eating not so healthy things (still within my calorie allowance) and wanted to know what kind of effects this has.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps
Ok, far from a health expert, but as a car guy I had to correct this analogy, before anyone goes and messes up their car.
The semi-veiled plug for organic eating aside...
An engine is designed with a specific fuel. This is commonly 89 (an average of two actual octane numbers derived by testing, the number you see on the pump).
If you go below the "octane rating", if your car has a computer, it will retard the timing and make other adjustments to keep the car in an attempt to lessen damage done by detonation (premature ignition. You will do damage in the long term. Just like the body running on insufficient food, you'll do damage. If it's an older car, it can not make any adjustments (doesn't know how) and the only result will be damage if you keep using that fuel.
Go above that number, and you will get no additional benefit. If you see a benefit in you car from running a higher octane than that which it was designed for, either there's something wrong with the fuel, or something wrong with your engine. The engine will run "rich", in other words, unburned fuel will pass through. There's no storage of unused fuel once it enters the engine (i.e. no "fat storage" as in the human body). This too, can leave to damage of some components.
As you see, the gasoline analogy does not work well in regards to "quality" of fuel as the OP asked.0 -
I think I've seen an all time low when needing to resort to the botanical definition of fruits & vegetables to explain ones diet.0
-
All calories are proteins, fats, carbs or a combination of those macro-nutrient. Some macro-nutrients calories are accompanied by water, fiber, and micro-nutrients such as vitamins and minerals. Micro-nutrients, Macro-nutrients, fiber and water are important for proper body function in the correct portion. Some taken to excess can cause discomfort, overwork organs, and result in toxicity. Nutrition is all about balance. Personally, I can get the nutritional requirements in my 1200 calories, but adding in a treat or treats will eat into my deficit or even cause a surplus. This is why I originally began exercising, so I could eat a treat or two, those treat foods are generally carbs and fats with minimal micro-nutrient content. I have found exercise to be every bit as delicious as the treats it allows me to eat and still maintain the deficit needed for weight loss. It really is about balance and choice more than exclusion based on the perception of food being good or bad.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
Even throwing in beans, grains, nuts, and seeds will generally still leave B12 deficiency without either eating animal byproducts, eating fermented foods, or taking a supplement.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
Even throwing in beans, grains, nuts, and seeds will generally still leave B12 deficiency without either eating animal byproducts, eating fermented foods, or taking a supplement.
Yeah, that was the only one I could find information saying was a problem. Not that it can't be done from plant foods, just that it was more difficult.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
Even throwing in beans, grains, nuts, and seeds will generally still leave B12 deficiency without either eating animal byproducts, eating fermented foods, or taking a supplement.
I think the evidence is still out on whether the B12 in fermented foods is truly processed by our bodies as B12 or not. As a vegan, I wouldn't rely on fermented foods as a source of B12 and wouldn't encourage anyone to do so. We should always supplement or eat fortified foods. B12 deficiency is nothing to mess around with.0 -
It would. Many vegans take B-12 for that reason.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »A calorie is a calorie.
Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.
Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.
The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
Even throwing in beans, grains, nuts, and seeds will generally still leave B12 deficiency without either eating animal byproducts, eating fermented foods, or taking a supplement.
B-12 supplements are cheap and super-easy to take. They just dissolve in the mouth and don't even require swallowing. Some taste good and some taste like crap, but it's easy enough to take.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »CamillaEdwards wrote: »For example if I ate 1,200 calories of chocolate would I loose weight a lot lower than if I ate 1,200 calories of something healthy like fruit and vegetables? I mostly eat healthily but have had a few weeks of eating not so healthy things (still within my calorie allowance) and wanted to know what kind of effects this has.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps
I see your knowledge of cars is about as good as your knowledge of nutrition.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »CamillaEdwards wrote: »For example if I ate 1,200 calories of chocolate would I loose weight a lot lower than if I ate 1,200 calories of something healthy like fruit and vegetables? I mostly eat healthily but have had a few weeks of eating not so healthy things (still within my calorie allowance) and wanted to know what kind of effects this has.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps
It's an absolutely false analogy, but it is an analogy...
It's actually an excellent analogy, since purchasing a fuel with a higher octane rating than your manufacturer recommends will yield absolutely no benefit (just like eating organic)0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »CamillaEdwards wrote: »For example if I ate 1,200 calories of chocolate would I loose weight a lot lower than if I ate 1,200 calories of something healthy like fruit and vegetables? I mostly eat healthily but have had a few weeks of eating not so healthy things (still within my calorie allowance) and wanted to know what kind of effects this has.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps
It's an absolutely false analogy, but it is an analogy...
It's actually an excellent analogy, since purchasing a fuel with a higher octane rating than your manufacturer recommends will yield absolutely no benefit (just like eating organic)
At least there was something useful in that analogy, then.0 -
If I ate 5000 calories of broccoli or of Snickers....all of those excess calories would be "bad" whether it's from broccoli or Snickers. A calorie CAN NOT be good or bad individually. The entire diet is what determines if a calories good or bad. In the middle of 150 mile bike ride and you need quick energy? Guess what, that coca cola is a good calorie right then. 250 calories over your goal for the day but you are thirsty? That Coca Cola is a bad calorie at that point.
This.
Everything in moderation.0 -
I used to think that a calorie is just a calorie, and that the quality didn't matter if you just focused on weight loss. But I'm not so sure anymore. For instance, a can of diet coke says its only 4 calories. So you're telling me drinking a case of that will impact your weight about the same as say a single serving (2 tbsp) of an avocado which is 50 calories? Yeah right....
You guys go ahead and keep touting such CICO lines, which I'm sure the processed food industry loves.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »I used to think that a calorie is just a calorie, and that the quality didn't matter if you just focused on weight loss. But I'm not so sure anymore. For instance, a can of diet coke says its only 4 calories. So you're telling me drinking a case of that will impact your weight about the same as say a single serving (2 tbsp) of an avocado which is 50 calories? Yeah right....
You guys go ahead and keep touting such CICO lines, which I'm sure the processed food industry loves.
What? You are comparing drinking a case of diet coke with eating 2 tbsp of avocado? Did I get that right? Why on earth is that a comparison? Now I really have heard everything. At least most people compare two completely disparate foods, like broccoli and doughnuts - but to compare a carbonated beverage to an avocado and talk about how that will impact your weight?
Also how would 50 calories of anything impact a person's weight? That is about 2.5% of a person's normal daily intake if on a 2000 calorie diet.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »I used to think that a calorie is just a calorie, and that the quality didn't matter if you just focused on weight loss. But I'm not so sure anymore. For instance, a can of diet coke says its only 4 calories. So you're telling me drinking a case of that will impact your weight about the same as say a single serving (2 tbsp) of an avocado which is 50 calories? Yeah right....
You guys go ahead and keep touting such CICO lines, which I'm sure the processed food industry loves.
You're trying to tell me drinking a case of water doesn't make you fat? Yeah right, I'm onto you, Big DHMO! I'll blow this case wide open!!!0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »What? You are comparing drinking a case of diet coke with eating 2 tbsp of avocado? Did I get that right? Why on earth is that a comparison? Now I really have heard everything. At least most people compare two completely disparate foods, like broccoli and doughnuts - but to compare a carbonated beverage to an avocado and talk about how that will impact your weight?
Also how would 50 calories of anything impact a person's weight? That is about 2.5% of a person's normal daily intake if on a 2000 calorie diet.
How on earth is that a comparison? It's effen 50 calories contrasted against another 50 calories? DUH!!!
If you really believe 12 cans of diet coke can only constitute 2.5% of person's normal daily calorie intake, then you must be a happy sucker.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »What? You are comparing drinking a case of diet coke with eating 2 tbsp of avocado? Did I get that right? Why on earth is that a comparison? Now I really have heard everything. At least most people compare two completely disparate foods, like broccoli and doughnuts - but to compare a carbonated beverage to an avocado and talk about how that will impact your weight?
Also how would 50 calories of anything impact a person's weight? That is about 2.5% of a person's normal daily intake if on a 2000 calorie diet.
How on earth is that a comparison? It's effen 50 calories contrasted against another 50 calories? DUH!!!
If you really believe 12 cans of diet coke can only constitute 2.5% of person's normal daily calorie intake, then you must be a happy sucker.
Right!!! Every time I drink a liter of water, I'm over 2 pounds heavier! What do they put into that stuff? Can't be good for you, those chemicals!!!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »You're trying to tell me drinking a case of water doesn't make you fat? Yeah right, I'm onto you, Big DHMO! I'll blow this case wide open!!!
What I'm trying to illustrate with such an outrageous comparison is that saying a calorie is just a calorie as long as IIFYM can be awfully deceiving. I tend to believe that how one gets to their arbitrary caloric goal (be it 1,200 or 2,000) matters.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions