Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
middlehaitch wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
I'm fairly certain that everyone involved in this discussion already knows that - my question was concerning the psychology behind these behaviors.
It doesn't take a ton of calories to become overweight. In fact I think it was shown that most people have weight creeping onto them slowly over years without noticing or not caring because it's never a lot at once. It only takes just over 100 calories extra per day to gain a pound per month and a year from now you weigh 12 pounds more.
But wouldn't that initial extra100 over maintenance, at an ideal weight, have to keep increasing as the body weight went up otherwise one would hit maintenance at a slightly higher weight?
Cheers, h.
ah no...an extra 100 over maintenance is just that...100 over.1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
I'm fairly certain that everyone involved in this discussion already knows that - my question was concerning the psychology behind these behaviors.
It doesn't take a ton of calories to become overweight. In fact I think it was shown that most people have weight creeping onto them slowly over years without noticing or not caring because it's never a lot at once. It only takes just over 100 calories extra per day to gain a pound per month and a year from now you weigh 12 pounds more.
But wouldn't that initial extra100 over maintenance, at an ideal weight, have to keep increasing as the body weight went up otherwise one would hit maintenance at a slightly higher weight?
Cheers, h.
ah no...an extra 100 over maintenance is just that...100 over.
Yes, that is what I was thinking, but the initial example for a 12 lbs gain over a year, I thought, was taken from an initial maintenance calorie intake.
It really doesn't matter. I think I am too tired to think straight, or write a cohesive sentence. 4:44am and can't sleep because of the heat.
Cheers, h.
Thanks for doing the numbers @stevencloser.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertising we are subjected to.1 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
Not so much lazy as convenience oriented. it's easier to drive than to walk, even if walking isn't that inconvenient.
But it depends... It's harder in a city like New York or LA where parking is a premium. and its observable that folks in cities where walking is easier... walk more.5 -
.0 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....9 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »With almost 70% of the US considered obese, I think we can safely conclude that people are utilizing food as something more than a means to fuel themselves. Emotional/psychological eating is an epidemic and diminishing the prevalence of this type of relationship with food is crucial to reducing destructive eating habits. If you are in control of your eating and at a healthy weight, I don't think you really need to be concerned if you are occasionally eating "emotionally"
it's actually 35.7% obese and 68.8% overweight per
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity
3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
"Overweight BMI" != fat/unhealthy.
"Healthy BMI" != healthy.
4 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.17 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
While I agree that we are all responsible for our own choices, I wouldn't discount the marketing bombardment. Many people Don't take the time too educate themselves on nutrition.
Affiliation program and strong brand id impact lots of people. Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts are example with the calorie bomb coffee drinks they push.
That Doesn't excuse poor choices but it is an influence.5 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
no donuts and fries are not fattening...no more so than a granola bar or a bowl of cereal or even a salad.
Food itself is not fattening..one donut a day will not make you fat as long as you stay in maintenance.
However if you over eat you will gain weight and you can do that eating "healthy" foods like salad or chicken etc.
And you will put on weight if that apple puts you over maintenance...
So yah I will say it again...Foods are not fattening the quantity of the food can be regardless of what the food is.
and yah I have science backing me up.
As for the ads again it is up to the person to decide...sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
While I agree that we are all responsible for our own choices, I wouldn't discount the marketing bombardment. Many people Don't take the time too educate themselves on nutrition.
Affiliation program and strong brand id impact lots of people. Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts are example with the calorie bomb coffee drinks they push.
That Doesn't excuse poor choices but it is an influence.
not sure I totally agree but I don't disagree...I tried the pumpkin spice latte...eh...but in making that choice I chose skim milk too...not part of the ad but my choice to make it less of a calorie bomb.
As well I live in a town of 10k maybe...we have 3 Tim Horton's (Canadian Dunkin') that I drive by every day....I drive by...lots do because we make that choice.
As for the education yes I agree with that...I am forever surprised at the lack of nutritional education such as "fattening foods"...people still believe that it's the type of food we eat that makes us fat not the quantity...11 -
Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.7
-
Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
I'm fairly certain that everyone involved in this discussion already knows that - my question was concerning the psychology behind these behaviors.
It doesn't take a ton of calories to become overweight. In fact I think it was shown that most people have weight creeping onto them slowly over years without noticing or not caring because it's never a lot at once. It only takes just over 100 calories extra per day to gain a pound per month and a year from now you weigh 12 pounds more.
For the people who are slowly gaining (the 100 calorie per day surplus people gaining a pound per month), after about a year there are numerous non-scale warning signs that are appearing and should be difficult to ignore. At that point, if they choose to reverse their weight gain at the same rate, they will have to eat 200 less calories per day. Psychologically, this is tough for some people; it is the equivalent of eating about 2 less meals per week, something that most Americans would find traumatic.6 -
Since I have started checking calorie counts on more calorie dense items, whether it's fattier cuts of meats or sweet treats, I also notice that people just mindlessly shop. I'm standing there checking labels but I'm the only one. I looked at a delicious iced bun thinking I might pick it up for a treat. 400 calories in one bun. Now if I was maintaining that wouldn't be an issue, even if mindlessly bought with everything else I know I generally eat it would easily fit.
So no, one donut a day isn't, generally speaking, fattening. Just as fries aren't either. I can and do easily fit in 1000 calorie plus meals like fish and chips into my day even while losing but I'm mindful of doing it on more active days/during more active weeks.
And I don't think it's that people aren't counting calories. Most people have some sort of basic idea that eating sugary, fatty, carb heavy foods at every meal isn't really the way to go. It's again the mindlessness and/or not wanting to confront or change habits. Combine that with all round more sedentary lives and it's not a surprise that more people are overweight and obese.
So I'm going to say for a large proportion of people, particularly those "just" overweight, it's not really emotional so much as habitual in combination of lack of incidental or purposeful movement.8 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.
So if someone did eat enough chicken and salad to gain weight, would it be the food's fault in that scenario as well? Whether you are over maintenance eating pizza and donuts, or chicken and salad, it is still up to the individual eating it to regulate how much they eat.10 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
16 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I HATE grazing/snacking. I do think it works for some so wouldn't say people shouldn't do it, but I strongly dislike how eating lots of mini meals is promoted and dislike snacking quite a lot for myself.
.
Oh really? Why is that.. I've just noticed if i have several healthy snacks instead of a sandwich or something more of a meal for lunch I can manage my calorie goals much better.
I also don't like to snack and certainly wouldn't want several snacks to be the principal way in which I get my daily calories. I like a small lunch (not more than a snack really, usually around 300 calories) and all the rest of my calories are eaten late in the evening for dinner.
But that's just me. Different strokes and all that jazz.3 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
Isn't this just an argument in semantics?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fattening
fattening
adjective us /ˈfæt·ən·ɪŋ/
(of food) containing a lot of fat, sugar, etc., that would make you fatter if you ate a lot of it:
Sure, you could probably eat enough of any food to get fatter (though honestly that is arguable) but I think most people know what someone means when they say "fattening". It's almost always calorie dense and nutrient poor.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
Isn't this just an argument in semantics?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fattening
fattening
adjective us /ˈfæt·ən·ɪŋ/
(of food) containing a lot of fat, sugar, etc., that would make you fatter if you ate a lot of it:
Sure, you could probably eat enough of any food to get fatter (though honestly that is arguable) but I think most people know what someone means when they say "fattening". It's almost always calorie dense and nutrient poor.
no I don't think it is just semantics...as the poster mentioned things like KFC and pizza being fattening but salad and chicken not being fattening.
When in fact a lot of salads can have more calories than even a quarter pounder at Micky Dees.
even the definition of "fattening" says " if you ate a lot of it"5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
Isn't this just an argument in semantics?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fattening
fattening
adjective us /ˈfæt·ən·ɪŋ/
(of food) containing a lot of fat, sugar, etc., that would make you fatter if you ate a lot of it:
Sure, you could probably eat enough of any food to get fatter (though honestly that is arguable) but I think most people know what someone means when they say "fattening". It's almost always calorie dense and nutrient poor.
no I don't think it is just semantics...as the poster mentioned things like KFC and pizza being fattening but salad and chicken not being fattening.
When in fact a lot of salads can have more calories than even a quarter pounder at Micky Dees.
even the definition of "fattening" says " if you ate a lot of it"
Not sure I understand your point here. Yes, like pizza or soup, 'salad' is more a method of preparing food than a food. Some salads are fattening and some are not.1 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I HATE grazing/snacking. I do think it works for some so wouldn't say people shouldn't do it, but I strongly dislike how eating lots of mini meals is promoted and dislike snacking quite a lot for myself.
.
Oh really? Why is that.. I've just noticed if i have several healthy snacks instead of a sandwich or something more of a meal for lunch I can manage my calorie goals much better.
Like I said, I hate it for me.
I find eating a bunch of mini meals or snacks unsatisfying.
I also like home cooked foods, and find preparing a bunch of snacks would be way too much work. I eat better overall if I eat 3 meals.
I hate how it's promoted because people are different (so they shouldn't tell everyone that they should eat 5-6 meals when some do better on 1-2). Also, I suspect that this idea that we should be eating all the time plays a role in the increase in obesity (but that's just a suspicion, I wouldn't insist it's really true without more, I'm basing it on observation and how I see the culture as having changed since I was a kid). The culture of snacking is fine if one plans healthful calorie-appropriate snacks, but I find if in the habit of snacking I want a snack at the usual time and if what's available if just a Kind bar or even chips I'll want that, when I wouldn't if not in the habit of snacking.
But that is a genuine "unpopular idea" of mine because I know I sound a bit curmugeonly -- it's my kids, get off my lawn thing. Snacks, go away! ;-)8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I have struggled with emotional eating. I still think claiming that some kind of "epidemic" of emotional eating (which probably is common, sure) is why the obesity rate is higher now is odd. I also think it's really odd to go to emotional eating from the posts on experiencing pleasure from food.
IME, emotional eating isn't about enjoying food at all. It's about self comfort and stuffing feelings. To claim it's about appreciating food strikes me as rather like thinking that alcohol abuse is fundamentally about being an oenophile or enjoying the taste of craft beers.
Humans are good at using all kinds of things to dysfunctionally deal with feelings, sure, and I doubt the tendency to do that has changed much over time. (I used to do it with food even as a teen, when I wasn't fat at all, so it also does not necessarily result in obesity.)
Why people are obese now is because food is really easily available and low cost (including the time of preparation), it tends to be around a lot and there are few cultural restrictions on eating, servings and the calorie costs of the most easily available foods are generally up, and people don't really notice, and activity that is required in daily life today is really low and for some people not easy to get without making an effort. Culturally hedonic eating is somewhat encouraged and mindless eating is common.
Indeed, I suspect mindless eating is way more responsible for obesity than emotional eating. Despite my tendency to the latter I think mindless eating was more of a culprit for me, even.
I don't get the impression from the average MFP poster who is struggling that being a foodie or enjoyment of a thought-out evening indulgence is the main stumbling block. Seems like more of them feel guilt and shame about food, eating, and almost don't really seem to enjoy food, to struggle with appreciating more than a really narrow range of foods, sometimes.
So going to "finding pleasure in an evening snack" = "emotional eating" = "the cause of obesity!" strikes me as, well, again, kind of odd.
I would say a fair part of mindless eating is out of boredom which I would consider an emotion.
I would disagree. Boredom eating is seeing food as "something to do" and not about addressing difficult feelings or self comfort, IMO.
Point remains that none of this has anything to do with the comments about desserts.5 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
I get it! I have read this several times. The thing is portion size is so small for the amount of calories you eat in a lot of the foods were talking about and thats partly what makes people put on weight. Therefore if its eaten regulary it is generally fattening for most people that dont think about the fact that they just ate 1500 calories at mcdonalds and then go on to eat normally for the rest of the day maybe1000or 1500 ish calories.. 3000 calories is too high for most people and if you dont count and you dont have the knowlede it can lead to weight gain.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
Not so much lazy as convenience oriented. it's easier to drive than to walk, even if walking isn't that inconvenient.
But it depends... It's harder in a city like New York or LA where parking is a premium. and its observable that folks in cities where walking is easier... walk more.
Very true. I rarely drive anywhere unless there is a specific reason, because parking is a hassle and likely to be expensive. It's not just that it's so easy here to walk (although that is part of it), but that it's also not easy to drive.1 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.
Depends on how much dressing (and what kind) is on that salad.
I agree that if you cook at home and make chicken (even with skin and bones, like I normally do) and salad it's easier to control calories than if you are eating lots of inherently calorie-dense foods, but people think that salad is "not fattening" and donuts are, so might be more sparing in getting a donut (when I was fat I was actually surprised to find out a particular donut I got occasionally was 300 calories, I'd assumed much more) and think they are fine with a salad when a restaurant salad can be 1000 calories and even a homemade one if you load on high cal dressing and nuts or cheese and what not can be high cal if one is not counting.
When I was gaining it wasn't much from sweets or "fattening foods" (other than cheese, which I love). It was being careless with the olive oil and portion sizes of supposedly "healthy" foods.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
Not so much lazy as convenience oriented. it's easier to drive than to walk, even if walking isn't that inconvenient.
But it depends... It's harder in a city like New York or LA where parking is a premium. and its observable that folks in cities where walking is easier... walk more.
Very true. I rarely drive anywhere unless there is a specific reason, because parking is a hassle and likely to be expensive. It's not just that it's so easy here to walk (although that is part of it), but that it's also not easy to drive.
Yes! Where I live it's very hard not to drive everywhere because it's a rural area and everything is far away. I'd have to walk at least 45 min at a fairly brisk pace to get to anything other than a house or church. It's almost a mile to my nearest neighbors house, even further to our mailbox, and almost 5 miles to the nearest bus stop. Nobody around here is going to walk to the store or work (unless they work from home ) 1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.
Depends on how much dressing (and what kind) is on that salad.
I agree that if you cook at home and make chicken (even with skin and bones, like I normally do) and salad it's easier to control calories than if you are eating lots of inherently calorie-dense foods, but people think that salad is "not fattening" and donuts are, so might be more sparing in getting a donut (when I was fat I was actually surprised to find out a particular donut I got occasionally was 300 calories, I'd assumed much more) and think they are fine with a salad when a restaurant salad can be 1000 calories and even a homemade one if you load on high cal dressing and nuts or cheese and what not can be high cal if one is not counting.
When I was gaining it wasn't much from sweets or "fattening foods" (other than cheese, which I love). It was being careless with the olive oil and portion sizes of supposedly "healthy" foods.
Of course you can have delicious very high calorie salads. Just an example of a generally healthy food. Lets assume we are talking a 300Cal garden salad lolol.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
Isn't this just an argument in semantics?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fattening
fattening
adjective us /ˈfæt·ən·ɪŋ/
(of food) containing a lot of fat, sugar, etc., that would make you fatter if you ate a lot of it:
Sure, you could probably eat enough of any food to get fatter (though honestly that is arguable) but I think most people know what someone means when they say "fattening". It's almost always calorie dense and nutrient poor.
No, you'd think so but no.. they rekon KFC isnt fattening.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.sophie9492015 wrote: »Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.
you really don't get it do you....
food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.
The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.
I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..
As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...
There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.
Isn't this just an argument in semantics?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fattening
fattening
adjective us /ˈfæt·ən·ɪŋ/
(of food) containing a lot of fat, sugar, etc., that would make you fatter if you ate a lot of it:
Sure, you could probably eat enough of any food to get fatter (though honestly that is arguable) but I think most people know what someone means when they say "fattening". It's almost always calorie dense and nutrient poor.
no I don't think it is just semantics...as the poster mentioned things like KFC and pizza being fattening but salad and chicken not being fattening.
When in fact a lot of salads can have more calories than even a quarter pounder at Micky Dees.
even the definition of "fattening" says " if you ate a lot of it"
Not sure I understand your point here. Yes, like pizza or soup, 'salad' is more a method of preparing food than a food. Some salads are fattening and some are not.
my point is that food itself is not fattening...that the quantity of food is and to say "salad" is not fattening is false.
To say pizza is fattening is false.
4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions