Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
No you will get people asking for your sources and if you can't provide reputable sources your point will be invalidated.
Also you missed a step. It's not the science minded bringing up the sugar addiction argument first, it's an anti sugar person and it's mentioned in response to that.
You seem to be way more stubborn than the people you are talking about and you are so hung up on the *kitten* that sugar is the devil fine but don't be surprised that people question your lack of sources or fear mongering12 -
No, I just don't waste time more than once. I've posted more than enough studies.
If you want to continue ignoring all of the research regarding sugar because "WELL IT'S NOT ADDICTIVE" that's fine; Like I've said previously, you're in the same league as a moderate marijuana consumer or psilocybin user.
[edited by MFP Mods]0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Wellness vs Weight Loss; this forum has plenty of the latter, not much of the former.
You've also got stubborn types who don't really want to learn anything more than they believe to be true; so even as new research comes out regarding longevity, neurodegenerative diseases due to lacking nutrition and fuelling your body for the long haul, you get people exclaiming with glee that "Oooh I ate ice cream because I had enough calories to do it!"
If you're on a calorie deficit, you'll likely already be struggling to balance most of the micronutrients your body needs, but it's really not worth the debate here.
You will be surprised how little it takes to get enough nutrients. Keto people manage to cram their micros in a very limited calorie window (most of the calories come from fat, and fat tends to be attached to the lowest micronutrient density foods by definition). The careful ones do just fine. Now replace 20 grams of that fat with ice cream and you will see it's not that outrageous.
As an example, here is one of my fast days last week, and it's nutritionally okay. I could have crammed the nutrients in even fewer calories if I cut down on the oil used preparing the dishes, but then it wouldn't have been as palatable.
ETA: have you also taken a look at the studies that show flexible dieting is associated with lower BMI, lower stress, fewer eating disorders and binge instances and higher self-worth and body image? Mental health is a part of wellness is it not?10 -
I'd hazard a guess that potassium, B3, B5 and B7 aren't near their daily requirement, and also probably a lack of EFAs too.
Also, there are a ton of fatty foods that have amazingly rich nutrient content in them - Cheeses, Avocado, certain nuts (Macadamia's for instance), MCTs, Pork, even butter and cream.
0 -
Up until I hit my 40s I used to eat quite a bit of refined sugar and white flour products. It took a number of years, but that way of eating did catch up with me. Then I started to get inflammatory symptoms, gained weight in midsection, and experienced water retention. Consequently after discovering the reasons for my distress, I have found much relief by cutting back on sugar and refined flour products.
I don't know what percentage of the population suffers from similar effects. But it is worth mentioning that SOME people do better adjusting macros to include a lower percentage net carbs. Those individuals might find that they get relief from body aches, inflammation, and water retention when they restrict sugar, corn syrup, refined flour, and seed oils. I can't figure out why some people on MFP would want others to stay sick and indulge in a woe that makes them unwell as long as it fits CICO model?3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »ETA: have you also taken a look at the studies that show flexible dieting is associated with lower BMI, lower stress, fewer eating disorders and binge instances and higher self-worth and body image? Mental health is a part of wellness is it not?
Like most psychological studies, a lot of the findings are very subjective and too dependent on how a respondent answers the survey. The other problem with those studies is that you'll find the endless amounts of literature around the obesity crisis across the world being linked to flexible diets, a lack of appetite control, emotional eating and the viewpoint of food being a reward or consolation item.
It's a little different to say neuroscience or even psychiatry where you're studying the chemical reactions of long term ingestion. And like I say; I equate it very similar to those that consume moderate amounts of alcohol, or marijuana, or psilocybins - those people will also equate those actions with de-stressing, removing anxiety, feeling more confident and sociable.
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »I'd hazard a guess that potassium, B3, B5 and B7 aren't near their daily requirement, and also probably a lack of EFAs too.
Also, there are a ton of fatty foods that have amazingly rich nutrient content in them - Cheeses, Avocado, certain nuts (Macadamia's for instance), MCTs, Pork, even butter and cream.
2974 mg of potassium that day, and by the definition of nutrient density (the density of nutrients per calorie), the high fat nutritious foods you mentioned have a lower nutrient density than low fat nutritious foods. The downward spiral into the orthorexia of trying to 100% every single nutrient every single day is not how most people wish to live. The added stress alone will have more negative effects on health than getting 70% potassium instead of 100% on some days.10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »2974 mg of potassium that day, and by the definition of nutrient density (the density of nutrients per calorie), the high fat nutritious foods you mentioned have a lower nutrient density than low fat nutritious foods. The downward spiral into the orthorexia of trying to 100% every single nutrient every single day is not how most people wish to live. The added stress alone will have more negative effects on health than getting 70% potassium instead of 100% on some days.
It really doesn't take that much effort to get your required daily micronutrients balanced to be honest; I hardly even pay attention when I'm planning my meals and still manage to top off pretty much everything with the help of a couple of extra supplements (Vit D, B Complex, K2, Fish Oil and MCT)
Also; if you're saying that "the volume of nutrients is higher in a stick of celery than in a macadamia nut based on calorie" - you're technically right, but not right. You're not going to find many sources of EFA in vegetables though, nor are you going to find Omega 6 (without supplementing it) in something like Brocolli, where as you'll get plenty of it (and a good shot of potassium) in an Avocado.
But, going back to that original point - I'd rather put 200g of Spinach and 15ml of MCT oil in my diet than a lump of ice cream that'll do SFA for my body.
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »2974 mg of potassium that day, and by the definition of nutrient density (the density of nutrients per calorie), the high fat nutritious foods you mentioned have a lower nutrient density than low fat nutritious foods. The downward spiral into the orthorexia of trying to 100% every single nutrient every single day is not how most people wish to live. The added stress alone will have more negative effects on health than getting 70% potassium instead of 100% on some days.
It really doesn't take that much effort to get your required daily micronutrients balanced to be honest; I hardly even pay attention when I'm planning my meals and still manage to top off pretty much everything with the help of a couple of extra supplements (Vit D, B Complex, K2, Fish Oil and MCT)
Also; if you're saying that "the volume of nutrients is higher in a stick of celery than in a macadamia nut based on calorie" - you're technically right, but not right. You're not going to find many sources of EFA in vegetables though, nor are you going to find Omega 6 (without supplementing it) in something like Brocolli, where as you'll get plenty of it (and a good shot of potassium) in an Avocado.
But, going back to that original point - I'd rather put 200g of Spinach and 15ml of MCT oil in my diet than a lump of ice cream that'll do SFA for my body.
If you add 200 g of spinach and 15 ml of MCT oil to the example day I mentioned there is still plenty of room in that day for a lump of ice cream. Horses for courses I guess. If the way you are eating makes you happy then that's that. It wouldn't make me happy. Food serves more purposes in my life than a simple nutrient and energy vehicle, and that's okay, even normal. You may feel your food choices elicit feelings of moral superiority, and that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that most long lived, healthy and happy people don't often put as much focus on nutrition as you do. Food is just an enjoyable, desirable, social and psychological part of their life.21 -
No real moral superiority, the thing you're discounting in your "Here is my 1000 calories that kind of balances my day" is that you're no where near the protein take most males need, you've got hardly any EFA in your diet, and ultimately as discussed you're not close on some pretty essential vitamins.
Now cool, you need food to make you feel good, that's fine, as I keep saying, you're not much different to a drinker, smoker or shroom eater.0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »No real moral superiority, the thing you're discounting in your "Here is my 1000 calories that kind of balances my day" is that you're no where near the protein take most males need, you've got hardly any EFA in your diet, and ultimately as discussed you're not close on some pretty essential vitamins.
Now cool, you need food to make you feel good, that's fine, as I keep saying, you're not much different to a drinker, smoker or shroom eater.
That's not how it works. I have days where I go way over the top on every single nutrient, days where I barely hit any, days where I have room for ice cream (I also find it interesting that you would mention ice cream as an undesirable food, then list the main ingredient as nutritious), days where I don't, and that does not make the cumulative nutritional and health value of my food any less healthy than orthorexics in the long run. The kind of obsession you have with nutrients and that enjoyable feeling of control over your health can be likened to a drinker, a smoker or a shroom eater, but if it makes you happy then why is that wrong as long as it isn't as harmful as the aforementioned activities and isn't causing you psychological issues (as you proclaimed)?12 -
The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
I don't really have an obsession with nutrients to be honest; like I say, I'm aware of them but I hardly pay any attention to them and hit them (and have done even when I'm not eating "healthy" - i.e too much protein, or too much wine and whisky) because they're not actually that hard to hit if you're eating to fuel your system.
And again, going back to my "people debating points that aren't being made" - I'm not saying anything is wrong with you using food the same way some use alcohol or cigarettes or marijuana or other substances. I'm simply pointing out the parallels between your food consumption and other habits that have higher health risks associated with them.
Also "psychological issues" - nope, didn't claim that, this is where reading assists you; when I mention neurodegenerative diseases, there is nothing "psychological" about that, the difference between psychology ( how your consciousness rationalises what you think and feel) and psychiatry ( the chemical balances/imbalances within your brain and system that can impact your psychology) is huge. Neurodegenerative diseases aren't your psychology.-1 -
Up until I hit my 40s I used to eat quite a bit of refined sugar and white flour products. It took a number of years, but that way of eating did catch up with me. Then I started to get inflammatory symptoms, gained weight in midsection, and experienced water retention. Consequently after discovering the reasons for my distress, I have found much relief by cutting back on sugar and refined flour products.
I don't know what percentage of the population suffers from similar effects. But it is worth mentioning that SOME people do better adjusting macros to include a lower percentage net carbs. Those individuals might find that they get relief from body aches, inflammation, and water retention when they restrict sugar, corn syrup, refined flour, and seed oils. I can't figure out why some people on MFP would want others to stay sick and indulge in a woe that makes them unwell as long as it fits CICO model?
During that time, where you also inactive, overweight and ate an overall poor diet?10 -
Whatever you eat, and how you choose to get the weight off, and hopefully maintain the loss for life, the bottom line is: being at a normal weight, is better for you health than being overweight.
It is each individuals choice, how we get there. Criticizing others for what you may consider unhealthy choices, really doesn't serve any use full purpose. Being overweight is unhealthy, how you get to a normal weight, and stay at a normal weight is up to the individual and their health care professional.3 -
Hey folks - Like most here, I enjoy a good debate. Sometimes debates get heated, and that's okay. If you find yourselves attacking other users (either directly or through inference) you've lost the debate and people are going to stop listening to you.
Now, stepping off my 'debate' soapbox; Also, we do have community guidelines that strictly prohibit attacking/insulting other members. Violating community guidelines can earn you warnings. Please, take a moment to click the link above and refresh your memory. Then, if you see someone violating guidelines please REPORT it rather than react to it.
Thanks,
Em2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
I don't really have an obsession with nutrients to be honest; like I say, I'm aware of them but I hardly pay any attention to them and hit them (and have done even when I'm not eating "healthy" - i.e too much protein, or too much wine and whisky) because they're not actually that hard to hit if you're eating to fuel your system.
And again, going back to my "people debating points that aren't being made" - I'm not saying anything is wrong with you using food the same way some use alcohol or cigarettes or marijuana or other substances. I'm simply pointing out the parallels between your food consumption and other habits that have higher health risks associated with them.
Also "psychological issues" - nope, didn't claim that, this is where reading assists you; when I mention neurodegenerative diseases, there is nothing "psychological" about that, the difference between psychology ( how your consciousness rationalises what you think and feel) and psychiatry ( the chemical balances/imbalances within your brain and system that can impact your psychology) is huge. Neurodegenerative diseases aren't your psychology.
So because I like ice cream sometimes (actually untrue, my vice would be something else, a cronut perhaps or chocolate) I am somehow likened to a smoker or alcoholic? WTF even is that comparison?
No-one here argues that nobody should be aiming to meet essential macros and micros, just that it's okay ot meet some of those via more calorie dense nutrient light sources. It's the "everything must be pure and healthy" way of thinking that has people struggling to keep their calories high enough to ensure basic bodily functions are sustainable. That's as unhealthy as gorging on donuts all day.11 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.3 -
I do enjoy these discussions where one person is arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
People make eating food so damned complicated. For 99% of the people on this forum, simply watching their caloric intake, hitting their macros 75%, and taking a daily multi will be sufficient.
I'm quite the runner, but I don't dive into the specifics of all the micronutrients, or trying to hit a perfect macro split every day. Maybe if I was a competitive runner, I would. Or, if I was trying to make a body building competition. Or, if I was suffering from kidney failure.
A lot of people on this forum want to put the horse in front of the cart, and end up making perfection the enemy of good enough.27 -
Up until I hit my 40s I used to eat quite a bit of refined sugar and white flour products. It took a number of years, but that way of eating did catch up with me. Then I started to get inflammatory symptoms, gained weight in midsection, and experienced water retention. Consequently after discovering the reasons for my distress, I have found much relief by cutting back on sugar and refined flour products.
I don't know what percentage of the population suffers from similar effects. But it is worth mentioning that SOME people do better adjusting macros to include a lower percentage net carbs. Those individuals might find that they get relief from body aches, inflammation, and water retention when they restrict sugar, corn syrup, refined flour, and seed oils. I can't figure out why some people on MFP would want others to stay sick and indulge in a woe that makes them unwell as long as it fits CICO model?
I usually stay out of these types of conversations...they have no end or beginning as far as I can tell...but...
Most conversations on this site are targeting healthy people...not people with a health issue unless the topic is about a specific health issue.
For ex:
At times there are conversations about sodium levels...they don't apply to me unless they are specifically about sodium levels and high blood pressure. What works for a typically healthy person won't work for me. I don't advocate for other people to eat low sodium simply because I have to.
I eat a moderately low carb diet (around a 100g net). It helps me with water retention due to my sodium issues. I don't expect that others have to do the same simply because that works for me.
For these types of discussions to have any validity they simply can't take every person's needs in to account. Those specific needs should be addressed in threads specific to those needs.14 -
stevencloser wrote: »Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Thyroid conditions and sometimes Diabetes, simply because the body isnt processing the calories correctly.
Thyroid conditions can't make you gain fat in a deficit any more than a medical condition can make you run a marathon when you're just taking a stroll around the block.
A deficit, by definition, means you're taking in less energy than your body uses up, you will lose fat every time if you're in a deficit.
And how does not correctly processing calories = more weight gain anyway? If my car can't properly use the fuel I put in it doesn't suddenly run at a better efficiency either.
Look up cushings disease and hypothyroidism
...and what about it? I had thyroid cancer resulting in a total thyroidectomy. After this I was told that I would gain weight, but not why. The vast majority of doctors are clueless when it comes to nutritional issues and weight management. Once I found MFP and started tracking my intake and output I lost ~60lbs over a year.
These issues are what you allow them to be. You can either build it up to be more than it is or use it as a source of strength, but that is your decision.
Me too! in fact a sign for me that my meds may need to be adjusted is if my weight starts creeping up when I'm tracking my calories/exercising1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Wellness vs Weight Loss; this forum has plenty of the latter, not much of the former.
You've also got stubborn types who don't really want to learn anything more than they believe to be true; so even as new research comes out regarding longevity, neurodegenerative diseases due to lacking nutrition and fuelling your body for the long haul, you get people exclaiming with glee that "Oooh I ate ice cream because I had enough calories to do it!"
If you're on a calorie deficit, you'll likely already be struggling to balance most of the micronutrients your body needs, but it's really not worth the debate here.
The most consistent risk factor for developing a neurodegenerative disorder is increasing age...10 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Wellness vs Weight Loss; this forum has plenty of the latter, not much of the former.
You've also got stubborn types who don't really want to learn anything more than they believe to be true; so even as new research comes out regarding longevity, neurodegenerative diseases due to lacking nutrition and fuelling your body for the long haul, you get people exclaiming with glee that "Oooh I ate ice cream because I had enough calories to do it!"
If you're on a calorie deficit, you'll likely already be struggling to balance most of the micronutrients your body needs, but it's really not worth the debate here.
"Wellness vs Weight loss" Why is this even a "versus" scenario in your eyes, though? Why do you assume you can only have one or the other, when it *is* entirely normal to experience both simultaneously?
For most overweight people, simply reducing their Weight (by employing CICO in whatever manner works best for them) improves their Wellness (health markers) dramatically *and* simultaneously.
I lost 75 lbs a year ago, reached my goal weight, improved my health dramatically and managed to balance my macros throughout, all the while occasionally including treats like ice cream as a small part of my well-balanced and nutrient-dense diet. And I dare say that my experience is representative of a large number of equally successful members who were able to lose the weight and improve their health without completely and unnecessarily banishing either entire food groups or individual food items that were helpful in maintaining compliance.14 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Wellness vs Weight Loss; this forum has plenty of the latter, not much of the former.
You've also got stubborn types who don't really want to learn anything more than they believe to be true; so even as new research comes out regarding longevity, neurodegenerative diseases due to lacking nutrition and fuelling your body for the long haul, you get people exclaiming with glee that "Oooh I ate ice cream because I had enough calories to do it!"
If you're on a calorie deficit, you'll likely already be struggling to balance most of the micronutrients your body needs, but it's really not worth the debate here.
"Wellness vs Weight loss" Why is this even a "versus" scenario in your eyes, though? Why do you assume you can only have one or the other, when it *is* entirely normal to experience both simultaneously?
For most overweight people, simply reducing their Weight (by employing CICO in whatever manner works best for them) improves their Wellness (health markers) dramatically *and* simultaneously.
I lost 75 lbs a year ago, reached my goal weight, improved my health dramatically and managed to balance my macros throughout, all the while occasionally including treats like ice cream as a small part of my well-balanced and nutrient-dense diet. And I dare say that my experience is representative of a large number of equally successful members who were able to lose the weight and improve their health without completely and unnecessarily banishing either entire food groups or individual food items that were helpful in maintaining compliance.
I think with more experience his views will change...8 -
Up until I hit my 40s I used to eat quite a bit of refined sugar and white flour products.
So not moderation, really?It took a number of years, but that way of eating did catch up with me. Then I started to get inflammatory symptoms, gained weight in midsection, and experienced water retention. Consequently after discovering the reasons for my distress, I have found much relief by cutting back on sugar and refined flour products.
What I would say (without getting into what inflammatory symptom means absent an actual autoimmune disease, as it seems to me to be the trendy self-diagnosis of the moment) is that of course people can eat poor diets and that will affect them. I don't think that's really in debate. The question is whether eating some sugar or some refined grains within the context of a healthy, calorie-appropriate diet is going to be a problem. I see no credible evidence (and that includes all the links people have provided) that say it is. So to claim, as some here seem heck-bent on doing, that anyone who eats some sugar and refined grains (say occasional pasta with shrimp and lots of vegetables) must not care about nutrition, but only weight loss, seems to be to be making a false claim. A claim that is also pretty rude, since "not agreeing with me about what is required for health" does not = "does not care about nutrition."
Now you go on to suggest that this is all about macros and that low carb is inherently healthier, which doesn't at all follow from what is said above, and I will once again note that there are numerous extremely healthful traditional diets that are quite high carb, and that includes the blue zones. When you suggest that "carbs" generally are bad for us, that deserves to be challenged -- doing so is not saying that you personally should not eat lower carb. (I think defining under 150 g as low carb as some here do is nuts, but under a lot of those definitions I normally eat low carb, around 100 g at the moment, so am certainly not opposed to it, and no one cares. What people would, rightfully, object to is a claim that everyone should eat that way or that it is inherently healthier than eating a higher carb diet.)
I would really like it if you could let me know if this is unclear in some way or if you disagree, because I don't get why we keep having these same circular conversations.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »So to claim, as some here seem heck-bent on doing, that anyone who eats some sugar and refined grains (say occasional pasta with shrimp and lots of vegetables) must not care about nutrition, but only weight loss, seems to be to be making a false claim. A claim that is also pretty rude, since "not agreeing with me about what is required for health" does not = "does not care about nutrition."
It's just not worth debating with some people. They believe what they believe until they believe something else. Besides, their rudeness says more about themselves then anyone else...
11 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Wellness vs Weight Loss; this forum has plenty of the latter, not much of the former.
You've also got stubborn types who don't really want to learn anything more than they believe to be true; so even as new research comes out regarding longevity, neurodegenerative diseases due to lacking nutrition and fuelling your body for the long haul, you get people exclaiming with glee that "Oooh I ate ice cream because I had enough calories to do it!"
If you're on a calorie deficit, you'll likely already be struggling to balance most of the micronutrients your body needs, but it's really not worth the debate here.
The most consistent risk factor for developing a neurodegenerative disorder is increasing age...
So in other words...
“On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero...”
–Fight Club11 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Wellness vs Weight Loss; this forum has plenty of the latter, not much of the former.
You've also got stubborn types who don't really want to learn anything more than they believe to be true; so even as new research comes out regarding longevity, neurodegenerative diseases due to lacking nutrition and fuelling your body for the long haul, you get people exclaiming with glee that "Oooh I ate ice cream because I had enough calories to do it!"
If you're on a calorie deficit, you'll likely already be struggling to balance most of the micronutrients your body needs, but it's really not worth the debate here.
"Wellness vs Weight loss" Why is this even a "versus" scenario in your eyes, though? Why do you assume you can only have one or the other, when it *is* entirely normal to experience both simultaneously?
For most overweight people, simply reducing their Weight (by employing CICO in whatever manner works best for them) improves their Wellness (health markers) dramatically *and* simultaneously.
I lost 75 lbs a year ago, reached my goal weight, improved my health dramatically and managed to balance my macros throughout, all the while occasionally including treats like ice cream as a small part of my well-balanced and nutrient-dense diet. And I dare say that my experience is representative of a large number of equally successful members who were able to lose the weight and improve their health without completely and unnecessarily banishing either entire food groups or individual food items that were helpful in maintaining compliance.
Having a similar health condition to yours, I'll add that we manage our health by managing our weight.
I've also improved a hereditary health marker, one that often calls for medication, simply through diet and exercise.
I see no versus scenario.
Additionally, we all expose ourselves to risks every day. I don't know about the other poster, but I drive, I've flown on planes, before becoming a vegetarian I ate red meat, I grilled meats.
I'm not going to live my life trying to mitigate every single risk factor. Therein lies madness.4 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
I don't really have an obsession with nutrients to be honest; like I say, I'm aware of them but I hardly pay any attention to them and hit them (and have done even when I'm not eating "healthy" - i.e too much protein, or too much wine and whisky) because they're not actually that hard to hit if you're eating to fuel your system.
And again, going back to my "people debating points that aren't being made" - I'm not saying anything is wrong with you using food the same way some use alcohol or cigarettes or marijuana or other substances. I'm simply pointing out the parallels between your food consumption and other habits that have higher health risks associated with them.
Also "psychological issues" - nope, didn't claim that, this is where reading assists you; when I mention neurodegenerative diseases, there is nothing "psychological" about that, the difference between psychology ( how your consciousness rationalises what you think and feel) and psychiatry ( the chemical balances/imbalances within your brain and system that can impact your psychology) is huge. Neurodegenerative diseases aren't your psychology.
Wrong.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5405/23 -
OMG people - yes anyone who says "always" "will" "must be" almost always turns out to be wrong because there are always exceptions. The point is - that sugar is not good for you. Plain and simple. Will anything bad happen to you from eating ice cream or choc once in a while - no - of course not. But in general sugar is not good for you. I cant believe there is any debate about that simple fact. But if you choose to eat sugar - good for you. And if you dont gain any weight from it even better for you. So many people on here just love to parse each and every word. I have given up sugar and carbs to a large extent. I feel great and lost a lot of weight. Once in a while I will eat pizza when I want. But the point is - it works for me. If something else works for you -great -I am happy for you. I dont feel the need to call someone an idiot because they dont do what I do. I know its not for everyone.3
-
OMG people - yes anyone who says "always" "will" "must be" almost always turns out to be wrong because there are always exceptions. The point is - that sugar is not good for you. Plain and simple. Will anything bad happen to you from eating ice cream or choc once in a while - no - of course not. But in general sugar is not good for you. I cant believe there is any debate about that simple fact. But if you choose to eat sugar - good for you. And if you dont gain any weight from it even better for you. So many people on here just love to parse each and every word. I have given up sugar and carbs to a large extent. I feel great and lost a lot of weight. Once in a while I will eat pizza when I want. But the point is - it works for me. If something else works for you -great -I am happy for you. I dont feel the need to call someone an idiot because they dont do what I do. I know its not for everyone.
It's not bad for you either. Too much sugar is more then likely bad for you, as is too much water...8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions