Calories in calories out is it that simple?
Options
Replies
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You're talking about the overall context of the diet, not individual foods though.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
I dare you to find anyone telling others "eat literally anything" full stop, no other explanations.
The answer to "If I eat ______ can I still lose weight?" is yes, regardless of what the blank is.
"in a suplus" haha
3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
I dare you to find anyone telling others "eat literally anything" full stop, no other explanations.
The answer to "If I eat ______ can I still lose weight?" is yes, regardless of what the blank is.
"in a suplus" haha 2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
Yes, I think judging individual foods by their nutrient density can lead to problems. A banana can be a healthy or unhealthy food depending on someone's individual needs and everything else they are eating. For some people, olive oil is a great addition to the diet. But if you already have tons of fat and you need protein, it's not going to be a good choice.
I think a hyperfocus on individual foods is not helpful when planning a healthful diet. It's more useful to consider what's in a given food compared to everything else a person is eating.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You're talking about the overall context of the diet, not individual foods though.
A high nutrient dense diet would be one with a lot of nutrients for the amount of calories. Same as it would be determined with a single food.
Still never told me whether you agree or disagree.0 -
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
Not to toot my own horn, but I think my answer on the first page did that. Then people had to come in and say that gummy bears aren't filling (okay, but nobody eats them to be filled up anyway) or that we need to worry about the relative "abundance" of individual foods that aren't nutrient dense in our diets (which is a waste of time if one is already focusing on meeting one's nutritional needs).
"Eat literally anything" and ignore your nutritional needs hasn't been said in this thread (unless I missed it).6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
I would argue that this portion is still trying to demonize food in some manner. If someone creates a meal that fits their calorie goals and has all of the daily requirements it would be a healthy diet.
If someone is low on Vitamin B6 and has the calorie room, eating french fries ( or other potatoes) might be a viable option for them.
There are health concerns to take into account as well. If someone has all of their nutrients filled for the day but needs to have sugar for health/medical reasons, Eating some gummy bears to get that sugar is just as healthy as eating apples to get that sugar. if sugar is their only goal with that snack/food.
Having said that I wouldnt START your meal planning with french fries and gummy bears.
I wouldnt say that kale is healthier than an orange when considering vitamin C. You just have to eat a bit more orange to achieve the same amount of vitamin C in Kale. Neither option is unhealthy.
Wait so do we finally agree on what nutrient dense means? haha just messing.
I agree with what you've said, and that's a valid point, that if someone needs sugar because they are diabetic then yes in that situation, the gummy bears would be more healthy than kale. But generally, I believe nutrient density is a valid determinant of healthfulness.
I'm in an interesting situation right now-I completely overhauled my diet after getting interested in the Blue Zones and Dr. Fuhrman's stuff, and went from eating a very 'processed' diet, (lots of Lean Cuisines with sides of Fritos, fast food several times a week, guzzled diet soda etc etc), to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet that's based around veggies and fruit, whole grains, nuts and seeds, beans etc.
However, recent blood work done, after I made the switch, put me in 'worse' health-my cholesterol numbers actually got worse. Things like age may be a factor etc. but I found it interesting, to say the least. I'll keep eating the more 'nutrient dense' woe, at least until I have one more blood work panel done, but so far making the changes to how I eat hasn't done anything magical in terms of my weight, how I feel/look and then blood work/blood pressure etc.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
It's a myth that those foods are nutrient-poor.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2476/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2439/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2396/2
If you want to eat a few pounds of them on a daily basis.
"Nutrient dense" and "nutrient poor" are terms that people in the medical and nutritional science community use a lot, in both scientific articles and educational materials. Admittedly they're not very precise, but that doesn't mean they're meaningless either.
The links you posted list only a few vitamins and minerals, not the whole spectrum. But even so, they show that all three are a good source of several vitamins (as "good source" is used by nutritionists - not sure if you agree with their definition though). In addition, these vegetables (and pretty much all vegetables and fruits) provide phytonutrients for which no daily recommended value has been established. The fact that there's no RDA for a nutrient, though, doesn't mean it's not helpful. Here are some summaries:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=14
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=420 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
I would argue that this portion is still trying to demonize food in some manner. If someone creates a meal that fits their calorie goals and has all of the daily requirements it would be a healthy diet.
If someone is low on Vitamin B6 and has the calorie room, eating french fries ( or other potatoes) might be a viable option for them.
There are health concerns to take into account as well. If someone has all of their nutrients filled for the day but needs to have sugar for health/medical reasons, Eating some gummy bears to get that sugar is just as healthy as eating apples to get that sugar. if sugar is their only goal with that snack/food.
Having said that I wouldnt START your meal planning with french fries and gummy bears.
I wouldnt say that kale is healthier than an orange when considering vitamin C. You just have to eat a bit more orange to achieve the same amount of vitamin C in Kale. Neither option is unhealthy.
Wait so do we finally agree on what nutrient dense means? haha just messing.
I agree with what you've said, and that's a valid point, that if someone needs sugar because they are diabetic then yes in that situation, the gummy bears would be more healthy than kale. But generally, I believe nutrient density is a valid determinant of healthfulness.
I'm in an interesting situation right now-I completely overhauled my diet after getting interested in the Blue Zones and Dr. Fuhrman's stuff, and went from eating a very 'processed' diet, (lots of Lean Cuisines with sides of Fritos, fast food several times a week, guzzled diet soda etc etc), to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet that's based around veggies and fruit, whole grains, nuts and seeds, beans etc.
However, recent blood work done, after I made the switch, put me in 'worse' health-my cholesterol numbers actually got worse. Things like age may be a factor etc. but I found it interesting, to say the least. I'll keep eating the more 'nutrient dense' woe, at least until I have one more blood work panel done, but so far making the changes to how I eat hasn't done anything magical in terms of my weight, how I feel/look and then blood work/blood pressure etc.
In my experience, just focusing on "nutrient density" doesn't mean that you're necessarily getting the *variety* of nutrition that you need. I can choose nutrient dense foods all day long and still potentially fail to meet my goals for various macro- or micronutrients (imagine, for example, a raw vegan or someone who tries to live almost exclusively on meat -- you won't automatically fail, but it's easy to imagine scenarios where everything you choose is "healthy" and your diet will still fail to meet your basic needs).
(Not saying this is your situation, I have no idea).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
I would argue that this portion is still trying to demonize food in some manner. If someone creates a meal that fits their calorie goals and has all of the daily requirements it would be a healthy diet.
If someone is low on Vitamin B6 and has the calorie room, eating french fries ( or other potatoes) might be a viable option for them.
There are health concerns to take into account as well. If someone has all of their nutrients filled for the day but needs to have sugar for health/medical reasons, Eating some gummy bears to get that sugar is just as healthy as eating apples to get that sugar. if sugar is their only goal with that snack/food.
Having said that I wouldnt START your meal planning with french fries and gummy bears.
I wouldnt say that kale is healthier than an orange when considering vitamin C. You just have to eat a bit more orange to achieve the same amount of vitamin C in Kale. Neither option is unhealthy.
Wait so do we finally agree on what nutrient dense means? haha just messing.
I agree with what you've said, and that's a valid point, that if someone needs sugar because they are diabetic then yes in that situation, the gummy bears would be more healthy than kale. But generally, I believe nutrient density is a valid determinant of healthfulness.
I'm in an interesting situation right now-I completely overhauled my diet after getting interested in the Blue Zones and Dr. Fuhrman's stuff, and went from eating a very 'processed' diet, (lots of Lean Cuisines with sides of Fritos, fast food several times a week, guzzled diet soda etc etc), to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet that's based around veggies and fruit, whole grains, nuts and seeds, beans etc.
However, recent blood work done, after I made the switch, put me in 'worse' health-my cholesterol numbers actually got worse. Things like age may be a factor etc. but I found it interesting, to say the least. I'll keep eating the more 'nutrient dense' woe, at least until I have one more blood work panel done, but so far making the changes to how I eat hasn't done anything magical in terms of my weight, how I feel/look and then blood work/blood pressure etc.
In my experience, just focusing on "nutrient density" doesn't mean that you're necessarily getting the *variety* of nutrition that you need. I can choose nutrient dense foods all day long and still potentially fail to meet my goals for various macro- or micronutrients (imagine, for example, a raw vegan or someone who tries to live almost exclusively on meat -- you won't automatically fail, but it's easy to imagine scenarios where everything you choose is "healthy" and your diet will still fail to meet your basic needs).
(Not saying this is your situation, I have no idea).
Good point. I wasn't tracking but decided to look at where I was coming in at so I re-joined MFP earlier this week and entered a few days worth of food-my fat intake is really low. That makes me uncomfortable so I'm trying to figure out how to add fat, without adding calories (nuts and seeds are lovely, but calorie bombs!). So while I've been eating a 'healthy' diet, my macros are pretty screwed up right now, which could lead to long term health issues.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
It's a shame OP hasn't been back to clarify what he or she meant with the original question:
"Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?"
Many people assume that means that OP wants to eat nothing but junk (gummy bears, specifically and curiously).
I assume that means that OP wants to include less nutrient dense foods in their diet but does not intend to build the entire diet around these foods.
It would be helpful if @suenewberry81 would provide additional information and would help move the discussion forward so people might be able to offer more specific suggestions about how to balance nutrient dense foods with occasional indulgences.
I agree it would be helpful if the OP came back and clarified.
When I read "Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?" I assume it means majority unhealthy, however the OP defines "unhealthy".
I'd expect a question about occasional treats to be worded differently.
I see this as really a hypothetical, not about what OP intends to do.
I also would give the answer janejellyroll did -- yes, you would, but depending on the food you choose it might be harder to stay within calories and of course nutrition is important for health.
I find it obnoxious that people claim that kind of answer shows a lack of concern for nutrition or some such nonsense and caricatures it as saying what you eat does not matter.
If OP is asking for advice about what a healthy diet is, I'd expect her to, well, ask. I also agree with those who say that healthy is subjective, people think all kinds of diets are healthy that I don't (particularly), whereas many others think you need to do things (be 100% plant based, eat only chicken breast and broccoli and rice, go super low carb, eat paleo) to be healthy that I think are largely irrelevant or often counterproductive, depending.2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
A better way would be to judge a diet, preferably in the context of the individual's needs, not a food with no additional context whatsoever.
It makes no sense to calculate mg of micros per calorie and expect that to be a reasonable way to compare food's relative health values. There are just too many variables left out of the equation even if you assume everyone has the same dietary requirements.
For example:
Let's say food A has lots of one micro. Does that make it better or worse than food B with an equivalent total mass/cal of a variety of micros?
What if food B has essential micros and food A doesn't or vice versa?
What if food A's micro is rare in most people's diet but food B's micros are commonly found in many foods or vice versa?
What if food A's micro is one that is dangerous to consume in amounts not much higher than needed for health (i.e. amounts that might reasonably be found in someones diet)?3 -
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
(1) No one said "eat anything."
(2) OP did not ask for advice about what to eat. If she had, I'd give general ideas about what makes for a healthy diet, which one can do without offensive assumptions about what she eats. If she asked how to improve her diet, I'd probably ask for more information about what she does eat.
(3) Assuming others need to be told by you what to eat unless they ask, and assuming they are too ignorant to even have a clue about the basics is EXTREMELY presumptuous and rude.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I think it's probably a bad idea to assume anything about someone's diet, except what they tell you. And even if we are told what an OP is eating, we don't know what everyone reading the advice is eating. If someone asks "Does it matter if I ____, as long as I'm eating at a deficit?" the answer will depend on what is in the blank. "Eat cookies occasionally" - fine. "Have treats sometimes" - no problem. "Eat literally anything" - poor advice, particularly if we don't know what "literally anything" means. For some people it means a very unhealthy diet/lifestyle. The best, most caring, and most responsible thing, imo, is not to give carte blanche but to give balanced and truthful advice.janejellyroll wrote: »I personally think it's very condescending for us to assume, automatically, that anyone asking OP's question (or a variant of it) is asking if they can survive on Red Bulls, Oreos, and Slim Jims. If someone asks about how they can tweak their diet to make it more healthful, I'm happy to try to help. But I am not going to assume that they need to hear that from me and I'm certainly not going to assume that what "healthy diet" means to me is what it means to someone else.
Not to toot my own horn, but I think my answer on the first page did that. Then people had to come in and say that gummy bears aren't filling (okay, but nobody eats them to be filled up anyway) or that we need to worry about the relative "abundance" of individual foods that aren't nutrient dense in our diets (which is a waste of time if one is already focusing on meeting one's nutritional needs).
"Eat literally anything" and ignore your nutritional needs hasn't been said in this thread (unless I missed it).
You probably won't get a response to this, as it would mean acknowledging that the strawman that OP is being told to eat an unhealthy diet or anything or whatever is just that, a strawman.2 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
I would argue that this portion is still trying to demonize food in some manner. If someone creates a meal that fits their calorie goals and has all of the daily requirements it would be a healthy diet.
If someone is low on Vitamin B6 and has the calorie room, eating french fries ( or other potatoes) might be a viable option for them.
There are health concerns to take into account as well. If someone has all of their nutrients filled for the day but needs to have sugar for health/medical reasons, Eating some gummy bears to get that sugar is just as healthy as eating apples to get that sugar. if sugar is their only goal with that snack/food.
Having said that I wouldnt START your meal planning with french fries and gummy bears.
I wouldnt say that kale is healthier than an orange when considering vitamin C. You just have to eat a bit more orange to achieve the same amount of vitamin C in Kale. Neither option is unhealthy.
Wait so do we finally agree on what nutrient dense means? haha just messing.
I agree with what you've said, and that's a valid point, that if someone needs sugar because they are diabetic then yes in that situation, the gummy bears would be more healthy than kale. But generally, I believe nutrient density is a valid determinant of healthfulness.
I'm in an interesting situation right now-I completely overhauled my diet after getting interested in the Blue Zones and Dr. Fuhrman's stuff, and went from eating a very 'processed' diet, (lots of Lean Cuisines with sides of Fritos, fast food several times a week, guzzled diet soda etc etc), to a mostly whole foods, plant based diet that's based around veggies and fruit, whole grains, nuts and seeds, beans etc.
However, recent blood work done, after I made the switch, put me in 'worse' health-my cholesterol numbers actually got worse. Things like age may be a factor etc. but I found it interesting, to say the least. I'll keep eating the more 'nutrient dense' woe, at least until I have one more blood work panel done, but so far making the changes to how I eat hasn't done anything magical in terms of my weight, how I feel/look and then blood work/blood pressure etc.
In my experience, just focusing on "nutrient density" doesn't mean that you're necessarily getting the *variety* of nutrition that you need. I can choose nutrient dense foods all day long and still potentially fail to meet my goals for various macro- or micronutrients (imagine, for example, a raw vegan or someone who tries to live almost exclusively on meat -- you won't automatically fail, but it's easy to imagine scenarios where everything you choose is "healthy" and your diet will still fail to meet your basic needs).
(Not saying this is your situation, I have no idea).
Good point. I wasn't tracking but decided to look at where I was coming in at so I re-joined MFP earlier this week and entered a few days worth of food-my fat intake is really low. That makes me uncomfortable so I'm trying to figure out how to add fat, without adding calories (nuts and seeds are lovely, but calorie bombs!). So while I've been eating a 'healthy' diet, my macros are pretty screwed up right now, which could lead to long term health issues.
Fat is quite calorie-dense, so that's a challenge. When my fat gets too low for my liking, I'll usually add some coconut oil to my roasted vegetables (just a taste preference, any plant oil will work) or add some avocado to my meals.
And I just looked at your user name and thought "olives!"1 -
Not all calories are the same in how they make me feel. My experience is that it is easier to stay within my CICO if I restrict carbs and sugar. Other people may have a different metabolism and can just reduce calories (and include a snickers bite or two); not me. Sugar is like crack - once I start I can't stop.3
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Yes you can eat complete crap food only and still lose weight. You'll probably feel like garbage, and be hungry much sooner, but sure , you'll lose the weight.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make upthread. Why did you feel the need to point out that eating ONLY "crap food" would make a person feel like garbage? Do you think OP intends to only eat junk food?
No I assume they are asking if eating entirely unhealthy food would have the same weight loss as eating entirely healthy food. Which is a common question about how CICO works. I wouldn't assume anyone actually would eat entirely twinkies and cupcakes everyday as thier entire diet. But if they did, they would still lose weight, as long as they stayed under thier deficit. It's not reccomended because they would feel like crap, and make themselves good and sick. But it is still physically possible.
Why did you feel the need argue over a unambiguous comment and insinuate that I was trying to sneak in an insult? Perhaps you should stop worrying about whether someones unstated assumption is some type of insult and concentrate on what you know darn good and well they were actually saying.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
Not @WinoGelato, but since this is an extension from my 'Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.', I'm answering anyway.
No, I don't agree. One can fit in all of their micros in < 1000 cals assuming standard requirements. Depending on one's TDEE, that may leave a lot of room to play with. Eating more micros at that point may be neutral - excess (over requirements) is harmlessly excreted, better for you - excess is put to good use, or harmful - excess is deleterious. Or any combination of those choices. It depends on what you're eating and how much.3 -
Bottom line is yes as long as you eat in caloric deficit you lose weight. No humans can live on one single type of food indefinitely . Not even the astronauts that have packed all the macros and micros in that piece of plastic meal. It is not sustainable. Nature that fed us for millions of years did not create such a food because I think again it is not sustainable. Eskimos ate plants and berries as well and not only meat or related.1
-
That is actual not true. More than suggested micro nutrients can do harm and not all the excess is eliminated. Though our body is very clever and complex there are situations when it can accept more than needed.
Read below:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/nutrition-vitamins-11/fat-water-nutrient?page=1RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.
They aren't low nutrient density foods... They're just super low in calories.
So less than 5% in vitamins per 100g per daily recommended intake isnt low nutrient? So that must mean French fries are a super nutritious because they have 20% daily B6 vitamin per 100g.
Do you see the flaw in your thinking yet?
No, you're not understanding the meaning of nutrient density. It's not based on weight, its based off nutrients per calorie, not nutrients per weight.
Density is a measure of x per volume. not weight. but otherwise. you're still mistaken.
You guys, its a basic definition..... Nutrient density is based off the nutrient value per calorie in a given food.
Ok so you want to make up a definition for density now. So Avocados are unhealthy?
Actually, nutrient density was defined by Joel Fuhrman. Nutrients (and he really means micros) per calorie is the commonly recognized definition.
Things like olive oil are not nutrient dense. Olive oil is less nutrient dense than ice cream, potato chips and french fries. It does beat out non-diet sodas, though.
Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.
What do you think would be a better way? That's just my opinion.
Generally foods that are higher nutrient density are considered healthier foods, and foods that are lower density are considered less healthy.
It's generally accepted around here to talk about a DIET that is built around primarily nutrient dense foods. That's totally fine and no one really bats an eye. It's when you try to isolate individual foods into "healthy/unhealthy" or "good/bad" that it becomes a slippery slope - for the reasons I outlined above. You really can't evaluate individual foods without looking at the context of the overall DIET.
I agree, so would you say that a DIET consisting of mainly nutrient dense foods is more HEALTHY than a diet consisting of less nutrient dense foods?
For me, I would say yes, I believe a diet consisting of more nutrient dense foods makes the diet more healthy.
Not sure if you were here for the start, by my original response was a response to someone asking what an unhealthy diet was. And I responded with a diet with an abundance of low nutrient dense foods. Not word for word but something along those lines.
Not @WinoGelato, but since this is an extension from my 'Nutrient density is still not a smart way to judge the 'health' of a food.', I'm answering anyway.
No, I don't agree. One can fit in all of their micros in < 1000 cals assuming standard requirements. Depending on one's TDEE, that may leave a lot of room to play with. Eating more micros at that point may be neutral - excess (over requirements) is harmlessly excreted, better for you - excess is put to good use, or harmful - excess is deleterious. Or any combination of those choices. It depends on what you're eating and how much.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions