For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.
Sorry, I should not have implied daily. I saw another article which I can't find now, that suggest items such as those on the whoa list should not be more than 10-15% of an individual's average daily calories. And that would assume the person is getting appropriate macros/micros, again on an average over time.
I believe those articles would be providing the same direction.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
Simply fabulous. Thanks.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
This was you comment: "I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science."
Can you point to any nutritional advice from a mainstream expert in the field that is materially different than what is on the chart?
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Is there a point in eating a fried egg if it wasn't cooked in the same pan you cooked your bacon in?0 -
Brynne_Kathryn wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.
Is there a point in eating a fried egg if it wasn't cooked in the same pan you cooked your bacon in?
It would be a total fail
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.
Sorry, I should not have implied daily. I saw another article which I can't find now, that suggest items such as those on the whoa list should not be more than 10-15% of an individual's average daily calories. And that would assume the person is getting appropriate macros/micros, again on an average over time.
I believe those articles would be providing the same direction.
So the overall point I think you are making -- whether you mean to or not -- is that it's overall diet that matters. I totally agree, and think most who argue that there are no bad foods also would. Absolutely a sensible diet should include a sensible breakdown of macros and adequate micros and, yes, eating a disproportionate amount of cheese or cookies or coconut oil wouldn't allow for that. But you need to look at diet and, I'd argue, what you include and total calories, vs. what you don't include, for a good understanding of that.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
Did I say a high percentage of the average person's diet should be comprised of anything? I do not believe I did.
I'm not quite sure why this isn't getting through to people who want to have "good and bad" food lists, but no one is advocating that anyone's diet SHOULD consist PRIMARILY of sweets and fatty fried foods.
The whole "whoa" list is designed with one thing in mind: to help people mindlessly cut calories without counting calories. In my opinion counting calories is actually simpler and doesn't require arbitrary lists of "go" "and whoa" foods. The whole thing could be simplified by "fat = bad, sugar = bad".
The arbitrariness of this list is pretty hard to ignore. What is "sometimes" and what is "rarely" to start with? 20% of my daily calories? 10% ? 5%? No more than one item on the list a week? No more than one item a month?
If 300 of my 1500 calories come from "woah" foods am I consuming them "always", "sometimes" or "rarely"? How about 100 calories? That's 1 ounce of cheese? Is there some really good reason why I can't fit 1 ounce of cheese into my diet every day? The diet says real cheese is a "woah" based solely on its fat content, ignoring other nutritional value in it.
Or avocados? Why are avocados singled out as a "rarely" food? Does that mean the Avocado Challenge that MyFitnessPal sponsored here was undermining all the participants' diets? Why are oven-baked potatoes bad for you when boiled potatoes can be inferred to be "ok" or fried potatoes on the "whoa" list with no regards to how they're prepared? I assume they wound up on "woah" because they're often paired with butter (another "woah") but what if they're prepared with a light spray of canola oil? How do they get elevated to the "rarely" list? Same goes for fish. Fried is "woah" regardless of how you fry.
And "Whole eggs" are "sometimes", but "rarely" if fried with fat. It seems to me there's a great difference between poaching your eggs in butter and fring them up with a little butter or olive oil; but this guideline instead just calls fried eggs "bad". Yet egg whites/substitutes are "any time" and "nutrient-dense" I dare say the yolk is far more nutrient-dense than the white of an egg, and science has pretty conclusively come down against the whole dietary cholesterol argument. So that's really arbitrary.
"Lean ground beef" is a "sometimes" but trimmed beef is "go"? Why does that make any sense? Ground beef is just other cuts of beef ground up. This appears to ok eating a porterhouse daily (24% fat on average) but suggest you should only have limited servings of 90% lean hamburger. And I dare say a lot of dieters here are going to take issue with peanut butter being a "sometimes" food. Unless "sometimes" means "you can consume a serving or two every single day" because I'm pretty sure a significant number of successful dieters and weight-loss maintainers on this site do.
"Unsweetened whole-grain breakfast cereals" are a go, while "sweetened breakfast cereals" are "whoah"? Why? The existence of a little extra sugar doesn't make the cereal any less nutritious. Honey nut Cheerios (110 calories) are "woah" while plain Cheerios (100 calories) are "go"? Or are plain Cheerios "woah" because they have 1 g of sugar? I'm really not sure how this works. Plain oatmeal is "go" but if you put a teaspoon of sugar on it, it becomes "woah"? Somehow the sugar or honey turns it into a food that's dangerous for you and will make you fat if you eat more than once in a blue moon?
I am pretty confidant a person could get all of their necessary nutrition solely from that "whoa" list if they were content with smaller volumes of food. Whether any individual would care to is up to them, and certainly they'd have to take care with minerals and vitamins if they were concentrating on one or two areas of the chart. Though if their weakness was vegetables with butter or cheese sauce, the butter and cheese sauce certainly do not negate the nutrition of the vegetables.
Perhaps you want to call this "nit picking specifics" but when a list is made of a bunch of specific, arbitrary rules like this, there is nothing to do really but to critique it in both content and construction.
Incidentally, I think my sister got through college and graduate school eating mostly mac & cheese with whole milk, real cheese and butter. I believe that was pretty much all she ate every day though, the equivalent of one box of mac & cheese, and a multivitamin. She maintained a healthy BMI that entire time, too. Heaven knows she was healthy as a horse, too. She called my refrigerator "nothing but inedible health garbage".. during that period I managed to go from 165 lbs up to 220 lbs eating nothing but "healthy" foods (which almost all came from that "go" list, also known as a low-fat diet), so yeah.. calories are king when it comes to weight.
Also, really smart points.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I disagree with most of that chart. It is still pushing the out dated low fat agenda. I've lost 40 lbs eating a lot of whoa foods, not all but quite a few. I avoided the grains and sugars.
Plus the difference between their go and whoa foods is pretty arbitrary. Whole grain breads is better than muffin? Depends on how you make them - it not true in my house. Ketchup is better than butter? LOL not in my universe.
I agree, the foods on the list are highly arbitrary and not backed by sound nutritional and biochemical science. It really does promote the outdated (and rather thoroughly scientifically rebutted) low-fat model of weight loss. If you read the actual "We Can (lose weight)" webpage, it is pretty clear that a calorie is a calorie. They suggest this low-fat model as a way for people to reduce overall caloric intake. But it appears to me that there was something of a political agenda in the way that the downloadable chart/guide was written up, hence the arbitrariness of the "WHOA" foods.
My deficit calories are 1500 daily and I can fit a pretty generous serving of at least one "WOAH" food into my daily diet if I so choose. Actually, since this thing banned all good cheeses (really?!) I will modify that to say "I can fit two pretty generous servings".
Also I'm REALLY starting to look forward to maintenance eating. 16 months down, appx. 4 to go...
Can you point.to any credible source saying foods on the whoa list should be a high percentage of the average persons diet on a regular basis?
You can nit pick specifics but imo and I would venture to say anyone trained in Nutrition the chart is directionally correct
You are changing the goalposts.
The original claim was that you should not eat any of those foods daily, but only rarely. Now you say they shouldn't be a high percentage of the diet on a regular basis.
One point is that you can include them daily (I eat a little cheese almost daily), without them being a high percentage of calories.
Sorry, I should not have implied daily. I saw another article which I can't find now, that suggest items such as those on the whoa list should not be more than 10-15% of an individual's average daily calories. And that would assume the person is getting appropriate macros/micros, again on an average over time.
I believe those articles would be providing the same direction.
So the overall point I think you are making -- whether you mean to or not -- is that it's overall diet that matters. I totally agree, and think most who argue that there are no bad foods also would. Absolutely a sensible diet should include a sensible breakdown of macros and adequate micros and, yes, eating a disproportionate amount of cheese or cookies or coconut oil wouldn't allow for that. But you need to look at diet and, I'd argue, what you include and total calories, vs. what you don't include, for a good understanding of that.
Yes, overall diet and what is included is key.
I will read some of these posts about how someone is on a low calorie diet and hitting their macros when I'm waiting for an appointment. Often you will look at the person's diary and they will be on 1500 calories a day, 500 calories of high calorie, low nutrient food hit their macros and claim victory. Even though if you look back a few weeks had they haven't had one fruit or vegetable in that time.
Sorry, to me that is not victory and tool like the chart I posted have a place in educating people on reasonable choices.0 -
My diary is open and I was on a 1250 calorie diary in March 2014 through summer 2014, at least. I think that's an example of how you can have a balanced diet with adequate veg and protein, even when including some ice cream and so on.
I eat more calories now (and don't always log), so it's easier.0 -
Soooo... We can't talk about good and bad weather any longer? Yikes! I think it's bad that the words good and bad cannot be used here without inciting a moralistic argument.
Read up the thread and you'll see bad weather isn't as helpful as saying "the weather here today is rainy and I don't care for it," because while you might say that is bad weather, Shirley Manson would say your bad weather is the only time she's happy.
And now I have that song stuck in my head thank you very much...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Soooo... We can't talk about good and bad weather any longer? Yikes! I think it's bad that the words good and bad cannot be used here without inciting a moralistic argument.
Read up the thread and you'll see bad weather isn't as helpful as saying "the weather here today is rainy and I don't care for it," because while you might say that is bad weather, Shirley Manson would say your bad weather is the only time she's happy.
What!? That's garbage!
And a +1 for that too...0 -
And I just now realized I'm reading and responding to day old posts...dont' mind me I'll just be here talking to myself...0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »My diary is open and I was on a 1250 calorie diary in March 2014 through summer 2014, at least. I think that's an example of how you can have a balanced diet with adequate veg and protein, even when including some ice cream and so on.
I eat more calories now (and don't always log), so it's easier.
I fully understand it can be done. But given the fact that so many people are struggling with weight issues and not a clear understanding of what to eat, (referring to my comment on people with low calorie diets, but ice cream, chips, etc and not a fruit or vegetable for weeks) and looking at the general population it doesn't seem to be happening in practice for most.
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »And I just now realized I'm reading and responding to day old posts...dont' mind me I'll just be here talking to myself...
Get caught up dude! Geez0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My diary is open and I was on a 1250 calorie diary in March 2014 through summer 2014, at least. I think that's an example of how you can have a balanced diet with adequate veg and protein, even when including some ice cream and so on.
I eat more calories now (and don't always log), so it's easier.
I fully understand it can be done. But given the fact that so many people are struggling with weight issues and not a clear understanding of what to eat, (referring to my comment on people with low calorie diets, but ice cream, chips, etc and not a fruit or vegetable for weeks) and looking at the general population it doesn't seem to be happening in practice for most.
I think most people struggling aren't mindful about calories. I think once you are you naturally gravitate to lower cal more filling foods.0 -
I don't think I know anyone who has had no fruits or veggies for weeks. That's just being dramatic.
Actually I was lying around sick one day and saw several that looked like they were fully documenting their diet, not being dramatic (unless you count fries or chips).
Since around 90% of Americans don't get the recommended amount of fruits or veggies, the idea that some don't eat any is not dramatic.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6426a1.htm
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I don't think I know anyone who has had no fruits or veggies for weeks. That's just being dramatic.
Actually I was lying around sick one day and saw several that looked like they were fully documenting their diet, not being dramatic (unless you count fries or chips).
Since around 90% of Americans don't get the recommended amount of fruits or veggies, the idea that some don't eat any is not dramatic.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6426a1.htm
I think that's real, and worrying, but I really don't think the solution is saying "no added sugar or sat fat!" or whatever, but instead encouraging people to eat adequate veg and an overall healthful diet.
One reason I'm cynical about "clean eating" on MFP is so many have posted "can I clean eat and not eat veg" or claimed it was only "clean eating" or "keto" that caused them to eat veg. People should know, as a matter of common sense, that a healthy diet requires veg (excepting those with specific medical conditions like certain forms of Crohns).
Since I've always eaten lots of veg the claim that it requires a special diet to do or one won't seems odd to me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions