Calories in calories out is it that simple?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »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!"
I've been following Dr. Fuhrman's plan and added oils, including olive oil, are a 'no no', but I'm reevaluating my diet right now and may be getting away from his ETL protocol and instead just focus on a plant based diet without all the rules.0 -
andrejjorje wrote: »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=
This article is about supplements, not food. While you can certainly over-consume micronutrients in the form of supplements, there's little if any danger of getting harmful levels of micronutrients from foods, except possibly by juicing. And even then you'd have to drink an awful lot of juice regularly.1 -
andrejjorje wrote: »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.
Yeah, that's what she said.1 -
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).
So much all of this!
1 -
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.
I'm sorry you felt that way, but it's really hard to say what the OP meant with the original post based strictly on the way it was worded. I don't know why someone would ask a question about something (eat entirely unhealthy food compared to entirely healthy food in the context of weight loss) if they weren't asking in reference to their own diet. So since people don't generally believe that this OP means to eat nothing but twinkies and cupcakes - I just don't know why people feel the need to point out that a diet comprised of nothing but that wouldn't make someone feel very good. It's a straw man argument that plays out time and again on these threads, whether based on an interpretation of what the OP meant, or what other posters mean when they say that you can eat whatever you want and still lose weight. It is tiresome to constantly be explaining that no one is advocating to eat such a diet, nor is anyone really desiring to....0 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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!"
I've been following Dr. Fuhrman's plan and added oils, including olive oil, are a 'no no', but I'm reevaluating my diet right now and may be getting away from his ETL protocol and instead just focus on a plant based diet without all the rules.
Oh, I forgot you said that earlier. Sorry about that. Fuhrman's plan is naturally very low fat, I believe. It's one reason that I couldn't stay on it personally, I felt burnt-out and hungry all the time because I just feel better on a higher fat diet.2 -
It was a grammatical phrase of "Eating whatever even unhealthy".janejellyroll wrote: »"Eat literally anything" and ignore your nutritional needs hasn't been said in this thread (unless I missed it).
Also, imo, "literally anything" includes anything, where nutritious or not.
0 -
-
cheryldumais wrote: »
Awwww, *kitten*.1 -
It was a grammatical phrase of "Eating whatever even unhealthy".janejellyroll wrote: »"Eat literally anything" and ignore your nutritional needs hasn't been said in this thread (unless I missed it).
Also, imo, "literally anything" includes anything, where nutritious or not.
Yes, that is what OP asked. And the first non-joke answer was "Yes, that will work for weight loss, but overall nutrition is important for health." Nobody has come in to contradict that and say that nutrition isn't important for health and that OP should ignore it.5 -
To achieve weight loss, yes, being in a calorie deficit is all that is required. Just about anyone who is consistently in a calorie deficit will lose weight regardless of what type of food they eat.
Many people try to reinvent the wheel when it comes to fitness and nutrition, but at the end of the day weight loss comes down to a fairly simple math problem even a 3rd grader could figure out without much difficulty.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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!"
I've been following Dr. Fuhrman's plan and added oils, including olive oil, are a 'no no', but I'm reevaluating my diet right now and may be getting away from his ETL protocol and instead just focus on a plant based diet without all the rules.
Oh, I forgot you said that earlier. Sorry about that. Fuhrman's plan is naturally very low fat, I believe. It's one reason that I couldn't stay on it personally, I felt burnt-out and hungry all the time because I just feel better on a higher fat diet.
Interesting you said this-I've been feeling really run down lately, wonder if it's the low fat thing? I really do like a lot of what Furhman advocates, but I'm starting to think he's a bit too strict with some things, that may not be necessary.0 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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!"
I've been following Dr. Fuhrman's plan and added oils, including olive oil, are a 'no no', but I'm reevaluating my diet right now and may be getting away from his ETL protocol and instead just focus on a plant based diet without all the rules.
Oh, I forgot you said that earlier. Sorry about that. Fuhrman's plan is naturally very low fat, I believe. It's one reason that I couldn't stay on it personally, I felt burnt-out and hungry all the time because I just feel better on a higher fat diet.
Interesting you said this-I've been feeling really run down lately, wonder if it's the low fat thing? I really do like a lot of what Furhman advocates, but I'm starting to think he's a bit too strict with some things, that may not be necessary.
Yeah, I believe that I feel better when I'm doing some of the things he recommends (eating lots of vegetables), but other parts of the program (avoiding plant oil, being low fat) are stricter than I need in order to feel my best or even contribute to me not feeling great.2 -
andrejjorje wrote: »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.
I'd love to see an example of someone with a vitamin overdose due to diet, without supplementation.
And I'm pretty sure that's what stealthq was getting at as well that having too many vitamins can cause health issues.
I agree that with supplementation that is very possible, but eating a lot of fruits and veggies everyday is not going to cause this.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »andrejjorje wrote: »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.
I'd love to see an example of someone with a vitamin overdose due to diet, without supplementation.
And I'm pretty sure that's what stealthq was getting at as well that having too many vitamins can cause health issues.
I agree that with supplementation that is very possible, but eating a lot of fruits and veggies everyday is not going to cause this.
I don't know if this is based on real life events, but I heard on Jeopardy yesterday that people shouldn't eat polar bear liver because the quantity of Vitamin A in it could be toxic to humans.6 -
People have died from drinking too much water....
I've heard of people getting orange skin from eating too many carrots.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »andrejjorje wrote: »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.
I'd love to see an example of someone with a vitamin overdose due to diet, without supplementation.
And I'm pretty sure that's what stealthq was getting at as well that having too many vitamins can cause health issues.
I agree that with supplementation that is very possible, but eating a lot of fruits and veggies everyday is not going to cause this.
Yes, thank you. That's why I specified excess as over requirements, not over maximum safe dosage.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »I'd love to see an example of someone with a vitamin overdose due to diet, without supplementation.
And I'm pretty sure that's what stealthq was getting at as well that having too many vitamins can cause health issues.
I agree that with supplementation that is very possible, but eating a lot of fruits and veggies everyday is not going to cause this.
Vitamin A poisoning is very possible in people who eat liver or other animal products such as milk to excess. This is preformed Vitamin A.
Plant based Vitamin A or Carotenoids will not lead to Vitamin A poisoning but with prolonged over exposure will lead to a condition of the skin turning yellow/orange and increased lung cancer rates in people who also smoke with this over exposure or have contact with asbestos. This amount is believed to be 30 milligrams. Which is the equivalent of eating 8 or so raw carrots every single day for several years.0 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I'd love to see an example of someone with a vitamin overdose due to diet, without supplementation.
And I'm pretty sure that's what stealthq was getting at as well that having too many vitamins can cause health issues.
I agree that with supplementation that is very possible, but eating a lot of fruits and veggies everyday is not going to cause this.
Vitamin A poisoning is very possible in people who eat liver or other animal products such as milk to excess. This is preformed Vitamin A.
Plant based Vitamin A or Carotenoids will not lead to Vitamin A poisoning but with prolonged over exposure will lead to a condition of the skin turning yellow/orange and increased lung cancer rates in people who also smoke with this over exposure or have contact with asbestos. This amount is believed to be 30 milligrams. Which is the equivalent of eating 8 or so raw carrots every single day for several years.
It happened to me when I was much younger... it didn't take several years.. maybe a few months.
Unless what you're saying is that over several years it can have an impact on lung health.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I'd love to see an example of someone with a vitamin overdose due to diet, without supplementation.
And I'm pretty sure that's what stealthq was getting at as well that having too many vitamins can cause health issues.
I agree that with supplementation that is very possible, but eating a lot of fruits and veggies everyday is not going to cause this.
Vitamin A poisoning is very possible in people who eat liver or other animal products such as milk to excess. This is preformed Vitamin A.
Plant based Vitamin A or Carotenoids will not lead to Vitamin A poisoning but with prolonged over exposure will lead to a condition of the skin turning yellow/orange and increased lung cancer rates in people who also smoke with this over exposure or have contact with asbestos. This amount is believed to be 30 milligrams. Which is the equivalent of eating 8 or so raw carrots every single day for several years.
It happened to me when I was much younger... it didn't take several years.. maybe a few months.
Unless what you're saying is that over several years it can have an impact on lung health.
Yes sorry the several years is the lung cancer increase.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
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions