"You can eat whaver you want, as long as you eat at a deficit" is true, but it's garbage advice.

Options
1232426282948

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    savithny wrote: »

    Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.

    So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'

    So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?

    Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?

    And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?

    The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.

    Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.

    (says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).

    Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).

    Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.

    what? Wow.

    I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.

    Food should spoil when it spoils, right?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    savithny wrote: »

    Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.

    So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'

    So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?

    Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?

    And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?

    The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.

    Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.

    (says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).

    Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).

    Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.

    what? Wow.

    I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.

    Food should spoil when it spoils, right?

    To be fair food will dry or freeze without human intervention under the right conditions.
  • AntoinetteAngus
    AntoinetteAngus Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Z_I_L_L_A wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    jdb3388 wrote: »
    People don't want to eat 1 slice of pizza, or a 1/4 of a plate of Loco Rice, or 7 chili cheese fries. They want to have a meal. If you eat the "right amount" of junk food to stay within your calorie limits, you're going to be starving to death and it's going to cause you to eat more. Eating food that doesn't taste as good as what you want is much better than satisfying a craving and then derailing later because you were so hungry you caved. There are a few people around here who have done their time, lost their weight, and they are in good shape. These people give advice from the "look at me, I lost a ton of weight so I know what I'm doing" stand point, but seem to have forgotten what it was like to ACTUALLY live as a fat person. So when someone tells you you can have junk food, don't listen to them, not because they are lying to you - they aren't, it's true - but because the advice isn't helpful in practice.
    Really? I have success rates with ALL my clients and I don't preach eating "clean" at all. In fact, I do tell them to eat whatever they like AS LONG AS they don't exceed the calorie intake set for them. Do you know why people fail at diets? Because they usually are restricted from eating things they actually like. If one LEARNS how to control how much of something like eat, then the chances are higher that they will adhere to that habitual behavior.
    Sorry if you can't do it, but that's an issue you deal with that you have to fix. Unless you have some actual peer reviewed clinical study that one CAN'T be taught moderation, you're just opining what you believe.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I scratch my head when you say eat what you want.....and then show what experience you have for 30 years in nutrition.
    I'm not a know it all, don't claim anything. Just kinda seemed strange, with all the bad food's out there. All the preservatives and crap they put in food now days. Maybe it's a 2 step process, lose weight by eating your favorite foods at less calories then maybe changing over to clean later on after you lose the weight.
    One DOESN'T have to eat clean to sustain/maintain weight once the reach goal though. I mentioned it before, but look at countries (especially in Asia) that don't have obesity issues. They don't adhere to a "clean" eating regimen. There's alot of processed foods, high carb and sodium bombs going on.
    I don't adhere to the fitness/diet industry's mantra of "clean eating" and do just fine. It's not a NEEDED ingredient to successful get in good shape and stay that way.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    This is actually false. They actually eat very clean - http://www.livestrong.com/article/316334-asian-diet-to-lose-weight
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Houses are not natural. I sleep naked in the woods because I don't want cancer.

    How do you keep your Oreos from getting stale, out there in the woods, @Carlos_421?

    You imply that they remain uneaten long enough to get stale in the first place. That's silly.

    You can have my Oreo's when you pr....... Wait. I don't like Oreos.
  • Z_I_L_L_A
    Z_I_L_L_A Posts: 2,399 Member
    Options
    I'm happy now that I can have my whopper with bacon.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    savithny wrote: »

    Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.

    So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'

    So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?

    Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?

    And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?

    The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.

    Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.

    (says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).

    Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).

    Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.

    what? Wow.

    I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.

    Food should spoil when it spoils, right?

    To be fair food will dry or freeze without human intervention under the right conditions.

    That's true, but what most humans are eating isn't food that has just somehow dried or frozen. There is usually prep and equipment involved.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    savithny wrote: »

    Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.

    So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'

    So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?

    Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?

    And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?

    The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.

    Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.

    (says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).

    Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).

    Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.

    what? Wow.

    I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.

    Food should spoil when it spoils, right?

    To be fair food will dry or freeze without human intervention under the right conditions.

    That's true, but what most humans are eating isn't food that has just somehow dried or frozen. There is usually prep and equipment involved.

    To be fair, that is quite true. Now lucky we are.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,442 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Houses are not natural. I sleep naked in the woods because I don't want cancer.

    How do you keep your Oreos from getting stale, out there in the woods, @Carlos_421?

    You imply that they remain uneaten long enough to get stale in the first place. That's silly.

    Gosh, what was I thinking?!?
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    storyjorie wrote: »
    I think what the OP--and me, for that matter--are reacting to are the many responses you see on here when someone new asks something like, "Am I allowed to eat carbs?" or they freak out because they had a donut. The responses often come across as if the person who asked the question is completely clueless and you see a humorous string about all of the many unconventionally "diet-friendly" foods people here eat and still lose weight. It's not always obvious from those responses that the people offering them meant "on occasion" OR can lose on a very high calorie level. I think the truth is, we all need to find foods that fill us up, and for many of us, that's primarily going to entail the kinds of foods found in many diet books: high protein, vegetables and fruits. Not to the exclusion of splurges, but as the primary staples.

    And you are more than welcome to chime-in on those threads if you feel more context would be useful. What the OP's intent was or what they're reacting to, I don't know. What I do know is that they posted a thread directed at all users critiquing the way we give advice. Based on experience here, that will never end well.
This discussion has been closed.