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.
Jack Lalanne's Advice
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Ah the corporate golden years. Several whiskies with lunch and back to the office to sexually harass the secretary for the rest of the day.
C'mon now, it wasn't exactly like that.
... sometimes we drank vodka.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
It's not this. It's that I think someone who clicks "like" means they like the post -- it's self evident (even if I disagree about whether the post is likable). Someone who clicks "woo" presumably means they think the post is unscientific or what not, and often that's self-evident too (and in those threads usually at least one person explains and the rest click rather than being repetitive). In debates like this a "woo" that is not explained where the post seems not to fit the normal definition of "woo" seems like a passive-aggressive "dislike." So I wish there was just a dislike or disagree for the people who want to use it that way (I don't think I would use such a button, personally).
But I don't really think that reactions add much to a forum anyway and was against having any of them. I use them a lot (used to use awesome a lot, especially) now that we do, but I think they get used passive-aggressively too often and also it's easy to make assumptions about who is doing that and often those assumptions may be unfair.
But like you said, I'm probably off-topic too now! ;-)
It may seem perverse, but I pretty much agree with everything you said, as well as what as what @GottaBurnEmAll said.
The part you both quoted/bolded? 80% joking, hence the winkie. 20% a (paranoid? hyoer-analytic? unconfident . . nah, not that) habit of mind, one that causes me to think about my own reactions, and ask myself whether there might be cognitive or or character flaws at the root, and if so, what shape they might take. The mystery "woo"s bug me, too.
I didn't "woo" either of you, BTW.
Thanks for expanding a bit about your post. I know I'm feeling a bit sensitive because the cognitive thing has been a bit more apparent IRL lately and I'm a bit on edge about it. Anyway, the woo thing normally doesn't bug me in the slightest.
It's just in the context of this particular conversation because I thought we were getting to the point where the discussion was becoming productive. So, part of me was wondering if my cognitive issues regarding communication were part of the problem, and part of me was wondering what I was missing about not seeing a middle ground being reached.
I've read all your posts and I don't think there is any issue on your part with clarity. They have all made good sense to me.
Thank you, that's reassuring. You should hear me in person. There's a lot of aphasia going down around here!
It would likely seem normal to me.
My wife has mild MS and it affects her cognitive ability sometimes. She'll be trying to tell me something and I can't make heads not tails of it. I'll tell her, "I'm trying here love but I'm just not getting it." We work it through. She sometimes if frustrated by it though. 3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.7 -
piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
6 -
I walked to school in the 80s and 90s as did most of my friends. We were all very jealous of those who got picked up by a parent! And if I didn't have to be indoors I wasn't. My mum can't drive so we walked to the supermarket and back, no corner shop/convenience store so we had to walk to the same supermarket for anything we needed we'd forgotten. Hell even the bus stop and train station were a good 10-15 minute walk!
Lifestyles are so so different now. I think we are probably a bit more incidentally active in Europe by virtue of the fact cars are more nuisance than necessity in cities because of nightmare parking and so we still walk a fair amount, including just getting to public transport stops and stations. And we don't have nearly so many drive throughs or even high street fast food, KFC, McDs and Burger King are about the sum of it. Oh and now over abundance of fried chicken shops, those were not a thing when I was a kid.
On the flip side we have a lot of takeaways with everyone having a fish and chip shop, Indian, Chinese as a minimum on their doorstep or easy delivery. So we haven't quite caught up with the US in terms of how heavy we are but we're still too heavy overall.2 -
I also don't think suburban sprawl is as much of a thing in Europe as it is here in the States. Suburban life isn't made for anything but the automobile.
I live, as the crow flies, a mere 10 minute walk from my grocery store, but it's made into a life-risking nightmare by virtue of having to cross a 6 lane highway. I never walk there. I occasionally walk to the pharmacy which is located on said highway, but that's because I can reach it by taking back streets.1 -
We have suburban sprawl and it is increasing but when we build roads we build footpaths/sidewalks. Even motorways, if going through residential streets sort of, will have overpasses that have footpaths as well as roads on them. Our town planning plans for walking as well as driving.1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.
Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?
"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Lifestyles are so so different now. I think we are probably a bit more incidentally active in Europe by virtue of the fact cars are more nuisance than necessity in cities because of nightmare parking and so we still walk a fair amount, including just getting to public transport stops and stations.
True, although it depends on where you are. Where I am cars are often a hassle (I have one, but drive about once a week, and not to works, since parking is expensive and public transportation is fine), and it's very possible to walk almost everywhere you might want to go. (Tempting not to when it's so cold, but then even though I have a parking spot it's outside, so that might mean getting snow and ice off the car, or at least waiting for it to warm up.)
But yes, I think this is on average a difference, and also a difference over time -- I noted that the TDEE in the book Ann posted for a woman 45, weight 128 was 2200, which definitely assumes some decent activity.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.
Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?
"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"
Wasn't Nibiru supposed to have caused an apocalypse recently? Either way, LOL.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Lifestyles are so so different now. I think we are probably a bit more incidentally active in Europe by virtue of the fact cars are more nuisance than necessity in cities because of nightmare parking and so we still walk a fair amount, including just getting to public transport stops and stations.
True, although it depends on where you are. Where I am cars are often a hassle (I have one, but drive about once a week, and not to works, since parking is expensive and public transportation is fine), and it's very possible to walk almost everywhere you might want to go. (Tempting not to when it's so cold, but then even though I have a parking spot it's outside, so that might mean getting snow and ice off the car, or at least waiting for it to warm up.)
But yes, I think this is on average a difference, and also a difference over time -- I noted that the TDEE in the book Ann posted for a woman 45, weight 128 was 2200, which definitely assumes some decent activity.
Don't assume the book was correct, though.
Certainly, people were more active. The thread about the book ranged into that eventually. We were not, in the first world, so steadily settled in front of screens, buttons, keyboards, joysticks, touch screens, at home and work. You even had to cross the room to change TV channels (and people watched much less TV).
I think modern folks leap to think of big changes, such as transportation, when this comes up. There are a myriad of little changes, too, and, over the course of a day, they add up: File rooms and file folders automated, shifts from blue collar to white collar work, factory automation, prep effort reduced with convenience food, video gaming vs. physical games and more sedentary hobbies generally, more riding lawn mowers/snow blowers/leaf blowers/string trimmers, permanent press clothing . . . .2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Lifestyles are so so different now. I think we are probably a bit more incidentally active in Europe by virtue of the fact cars are more nuisance than necessity in cities because of nightmare parking and so we still walk a fair amount, including just getting to public transport stops and stations.
True, although it depends on where you are. Where I am cars are often a hassle (I have one, but drive about once a week, and not to works, since parking is expensive and public transportation is fine), and it's very possible to walk almost everywhere you might want to go. (Tempting not to when it's so cold, but then even though I have a parking spot it's outside, so that might mean getting snow and ice off the car, or at least waiting for it to warm up.)
But yes, I think this is on average a difference, and also a difference over time -- I noted that the TDEE in the book Ann posted for a woman 45, weight 128 was 2200, which definitely assumes some decent activity.
Don't assume the book was correct, though.
Certainly, people were more active. The thread about the book ranged into that eventually. We were not, in the first world, so steadily settled in front of screens, buttons, keyboards, joysticks, touch screens, at home and work. You even had to cross the room to change TV channels (and people watched much less TV).
I think modern folks leap to think of big changes, such as transportation, when this comes up. There are a myriad of little changes, too, and, over the course of a day, they add up: File rooms and file folders automated, shifts from blue collar to white collar work, factory automation, prep effort reduced with convenience food, video gaming vs. physical games and more sedentary hobbies generally, more riding lawn mowers/snow blowers/leaf blowers/string trimmers, permanent press clothing . . . .
Excellent point. I was about to post something very similar, but you said it better than I could have. There are a lot of little differences which, added together, make a very big difference in how active we were then compared to now.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.
Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?
"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"
I have now heard everything. I guess the theory being asserted is that only aliens can handle carbs. Great. Just great. This perfectly sums up what a kittenshow 2017 has been.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.
Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?
"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"
I have now heard everything. I guess the theory being asserted is that only aliens can handle carbs. Great. Just great. This perfectly sums up what a kittenshow 2017 has been.
"Zecharia Sitchen's The 12th Planet is the starting point on a quest that spans six books and 20 years worth of ancient aliens, genetic manipulation, and scrutiny of linguistic minutiae. If we trust Sitchen's translation abilities, we must be prepared for the imminent return of an alien race who created us some 300,0x00 years ago."
You be the judge
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.
Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?
"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"
I have now heard everything. I guess the theory being asserted is that only aliens can handle carbs. Great. Just great. This perfectly sums up what a kittenshow 2017 has been.
"Zecharia Sitchen's The 12th Planet is the starting point on a quest that spans six books and 20 years worth of ancient aliens, genetic manipulation, and scrutiny of linguistic minutiae. If we trust Sitchen's translation abilities, we must be prepared for the imminent return of an alien race who created us some 300,0x00 years ago."
You be the judge
I can't. I can't. I don't know whether to laugh myself incontinent or despair.6 -
Laugh. It's probably better for mental health. Unless you're the Joker.2
-
moosmum1972 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.
Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.
I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.
If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.
People back then must have been very active compared to today.
One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make
I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.
Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.
My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.
Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.
Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.
I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.
Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?
"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"
I have now heard everything. I guess the theory being asserted is that only aliens can handle carbs. Great. Just great. This perfectly sums up what a kittenshow 2017 has been.
"Zecharia Sitchen's The 12th Planet is the starting point on a quest that spans six books and 20 years worth of ancient aliens, genetic manipulation, and scrutiny of linguistic minutiae. If we trust Sitchen's translation abilities, we must be prepared for the imminent return of an alien race who created us some 300,0x00 years ago."
You be the judge
I can't. I can't. I don't know whether to laugh myself incontinent or despair.
The woo runs deep all.over the world in the uk We have a guy called David ike who thinks lizard men run the world...
Not sure I'd take diet advice off him though.....
I'm British 1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions