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 commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Replies
-
Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?3 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?
It just seems like you are arguing too much about "perfection" with weighing. People don't expect the weight to be their "true" weight on any given day, but to just minimize those variables they can control. So weigh on an empty stomach after using the bathroom is the best we can do. Removes the variable of a big breakfast or a long morning run. I know I can add or subtract 2-3 lbs with either. In fact, for fun I tested it yesterday. I weighed when I got up. Had a small breakfast, several cups of coffee (3 I think) and went 15 km. Then got back on the scale when I got home and was ~3 lbs lighter than first thing. I should have weighed right before I went running, but didn't.
8 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?
Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
I'm willing to go out there and propose, without evidence, that a person's weight taken in the morning, in the same state of dress, before all the variables of the day, will tend to paint a better overall picture than weighing one day in the morning, the next day at 12:00, the next day at 3:00 after a workout, the next day before bed, etc. My personal experience is that I can see my weight rise by 2-5 lbs throughout the day as a result of food, drink, activity, and other factors and yet consistently return to the same number in the morning, regardless of the size of the fluctuations of the previous day. And I think generally a person will see a more reliable, overall trend in a shorter period of time (4-6 weeks) than would be seen with the random weighing method. At any rate, I don't think anyone is really inconvenienced or harmed by this advice
8 -
Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
Not really. Just really answering the thread title, which is asking for opinions anyway. Like I mentioned before, I see absolutely no harm with the advice. Just disagree with whether it makes an actual difference. It's not wrong, just not relevant. When we're talking about fat loss, in my opinion, a better picture is always painted the longer the time window is - and the longer the time window is, the less those little things matter.
The way I know fat loss is happening has much more to do with the food scale than the bathroom scale.4 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
When we're talking about fat loss, in my opinion, a better picture is always painted the longer the time window is - and the longer the time window is, the less those little things matter.
The way I know fat loss is happening has much more to do with the food scale than the bathroom scale.
No argument with those 2 statements at all. And your point actually highlights why this advice is often given to newbies who haven't yet cultivated the patience for long-term trends- makes their short-term data a little less panic-inducing. Personally, I don't even do daily weigh-ins. 0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? ...
I think this is a realistic and valid question, but my counter to that is that with all of the complexities happening, how do you even know you are "minimizing variables"?
For example, if you are holding more water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you are holding less water than you usually do and get rid of whatever is in your bladder, how would you know? If you ate food yesterday that takes longer (or shorter) to digest, how would you know?
You can be regular like clockwork and poop every day at the same time, or you can at completely random times (like me). Those are all variables that may only be slightly controllable. You probably can't actually control cortisol or other hormones that tell your body's systems to do various things. But in any case, they are totally irrelevant to fat loss in the short term. Reducing noise in the short term doesn't tell you anything, because it's really impossible to even know. Our bodies don't regulate in any sort of simple linear fashion.
The only thing we can keep simple is calories in (if we track accurately). Calories out is a little harder because it has its own variables, but those estimates can be decent in the long term.
I think the idea of duplicating conditions makes perfect sense at the high-level. I just don't think it's actually possible. Can you drop (up to) a pound, which is really high, in your morning trip to the restroom? Probably. But, does that mean anything?
I think you're overcomplicating it, frankly.
I like to weigh daily. I do it at the same point in my day, dressed the same way, etc., to reduce (not eliminate) noise vs. signal. But what's noise and what's signal depends on what you're trying to understand. Fat gain/loss/maintenance is just one possibility.
With my daily weight, the water weight and digestive contents is not just noise to my fat-weight-management efforts, it's also signal to my understanding of my body. I couldn't translate it well to a big population research study, but for my n = 1, I can begin to form some useful hypotheses about causes of that variation, including its size/timing, and can even develop theories by informally testing those hypotheses through multiple trials. I like understanding how things like exercise, varied food intake, etc., affect the scale. Since it's not fat, I don't worry about it.
Daily weight is a range; I expect that. It's helpful to me, and interesting to me, to better understand it.
Over time, the daily weight range may change: It moves lower when I'm l losing, higher when I'm gaining, and varies around the same general weight when I'm maintaining. Libra helps me visualize that trend . . . also imperfectly. (Sometimes I mess with the Libra advanced settings to seek particular insights.)
You (general you) don't need to weigh daily, if you don't want to, don't find it useful, find it stressful, or whatever. I think it's interesting and useful, and will sometimes make that case to others. That's all. 10 -
How people react to weighing, how often they should weigh is variable.
For me it's important to weigh as close to daily as possible, or I start putting off getting on the scale. Doing it in basically the same situation is the only way to make it meaningful. I get there are still variables. I don't think everyone is the same on this, some might not need to weigh at all, but to monitor clothes fit or what not.4 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Uh huh... you're clearly very concerned about many things
Not really. Just really answering the thread title, which is asking for opinions anyway. Like I mentioned before, I see absolutely no harm with the advice. Just disagree with whether it makes an actual difference. It's not wrong, just not relevant. When we're talking about fat loss, in my opinion, a better picture is always painted the longer the time window is - and the longer the time window is, the less those little things matter.
The way I know fat loss is happening has much more to do with the food scale than the bathroom scale.
See for me it is the opposite. Neither are wrong or more efficient, just different ways of tracking progress.
Since I don't track my intake I use my trend weight in order to figure out what is going on. I like to weigh at the same time daily a)in order to not forget to do it and b) I do think it eliminates extra variables, but if there are variations I am aware of them and they correlate to certain things such as a high sodium meal the night before, food in my system, exercise etc. If I took my weight at different times my weight can fluctuate 5-8lbs during the day. I never see that kind of variation when I weigh first thing in the morning. That works best for me.
1 -
I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
32 -
gatherum89 wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
The downvotes are likely because there is no "aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts." It simply isn't common to see people being told ignore their nutritional needs or denying that we need micronutrients.15 -
gatherum89 wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
What people took issue with is the claim that "MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat." That's not my observation at all, but seems to be a strawman, intended to insult other people.
Also: "Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death" is simply not true. I mention nutrition a lot, and rarely get woos on those posts.
And: "Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement."
I believe this is a reference back to another conversation in which I (and others) said that the differences between white and brown rice or white and brown pasta was not that large, and that a more important consideration -- IF YOU FIND THE TASTE DIFFERENCE SIGNIFICANT -- is what else you are eating with them. White pasta with a good lean source of protein, olive oil, and lots vegetables, maybe with some pine nuts, is a superior nutritional choice in most cases than brown pasta carbonara with no vegetables. And this is supposedly showing a lack of concern for or understanding of nutrition? Interesting.
As for: "And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it."
This is also a reference back to another thread, and an inaccurate account of what was said.
Instead, what was said was that the WHO and another cited source were not talking about sugar in general (as had been claimed) but ADDED sugar, and that the reasoning was (1) calories, and (2) crowding out other nutrients. As discussed above at length (is there a reason you chose to ignore it), if one eats a calorie-appropriate and nutritionally-dense diet overall, then it is very unlikely one will be able to fit in excessive sugar, especially if one is on a deficit.
People simply don't say "ignore nutrition," that is not what is meant by "no bad foods." Indeed, I think "bad foods" is not a helpful concept, in part because nutrition requires context, but I certainly do believe there are bad diets.23 -
gatherum89 wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
Nobody is disagreeing with the statement that nutrition is important. But I think people take issue with the characterization this is a forum that doesn't care about health or nutrition. We simply recognize that nutrition and weight loss are two different things and they don't always necessarily overlap each other. Nobody is recommending here that people lose weight on a diet of pixie sticks.
The whole "no good or bad foods" belief comes from seeing that often assigning a moral value to food choices is counter productive, and that most foods, with moderation, can be incorporated into a healthy (and nutritious) weight loss regimen. In fact often including those food in moderation can help a lot of people achieve their health goals, because diets of severe restriction to only so called "good" foods can have a higher rate of failure and binging. If you assign a food a moral value of "bad", it makes the person who eats it feel as if they've failed, which can lead to just saying "screw it, I already failed, so why not just keep eating that way?" Having a more positive outlook towards food in general helps a lot of people.
None of these things mean that we don't appreciate the importance of nutrition in living an overall healthy lifestyle.17 -
So is saying...
"calories are all that matter for weight loss"
the same as
"calories are all that matter for weight loss, but one shouldn't neglect nutrients and overall health."
Because the first gets said quite often. The second gets said fairly regularly, but can easily get drowned out by the first. This is where individual sensitives can come into play regarding what we read/interpret/retain.5 -
Indeed, I think "bad foods" is not a helpful concept, in part because nutrition requires context, but I certainly do believe there are bad diets.
This is a key point.
I think the vast majority (if not all) of the people who are in the "no bad foods" camp actually do acknowledge that there are bad diets, either due to the quantity of food being eaten or the overall food choices failing to meet nutritional needs. The people I see here talking about "no bad foods" tend to spend a lot of time trying to help people looking for help adjusting their diet -- offering suggestions on how to cut calories or plan meals that are more affordable and/or convenient while still being nutritious, offering ideas on how to get more fat, protein, or fiber, sharing tips on how to make vegetables more palatable for those who don't care for them, or helping people make meal strategies for households where there are varied needs (a spouse who doesn't want to cut calories, children who are picky eaters, etc).
None of us would be doing any of this if we truly believed there was no such thing as a "bad diet."
7 -
So is saying...
"calories are all that matter for weight loss"
the same as
"calories are all that matter for weight loss, but one shouldn't neglect nutrients and overall health."
Because the first gets said quite often. The second gets said fairly regularly, but can easily get drowned out by the first. This is where individual sensitives can come into play regarding what we read/interpret/retain.
This is where encouraging new users to read the stickies and forums for a while to get a feel for them also comes into play. Nobody should be reading one response and riding off into the sunset with that bit of information tucked under their saddle as gospel. It's glaringly evident (to me and just about any other regular) that obviously nutrition matters.
I'm intrigued by the pixie stick diet, though. Perhaps that will be the new big thing for 2019?8 -
gatherum89 wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
Because very few people on MFP are discounting nutrition. If you looked at the diary of the vast majority of veteran posters here who've had long term success in losing and maintaining, you will overwhelmingly find their diets to be overall very nutrient dense.
Things like "their are no bad foods" are generally in the context of "only bad diets"...like a cookie for desert doesn't wipe out the oats, almonds, and blueberries I had for breakfast or the chicken, brown rice quinoa blend and large garden salad for lunch, or the salmon, wild rice, and asparagus I had for dinner.
I can guarantee you the nobody here who's been around and has long term success is filling up their calorie allotment with a bunch of "junk food"...it's an asinine statement.13 -
gatherum89 wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
What is scary is that so many people think everything is binary and have no idea what "moderation" means in the context of a diet.22 -
In fairness, I think there is an emotional piece of weight loss that is much stronger for some than it is for others, and that emotional attachment can border on desperation... and desperation can make rational thought, critical thinking, common sense, etc much more difficult. That's part of the reason why what might be implied might not be what is heard. Heck, what is said might not be what is heard.6
-
In fairness, I think there is an emotional piece of weight loss that is much stronger for some than it is for others, and that emotional attachment can border on desperation... and desperation can make rational thought, critical thinking, common sense, etc much more difficult. That's part of the reason why what might be implied might not be what is heard. Heck, what is said might not be what is heard.
This is a kind interpretation, and I'm sure it's true . . . sometimes, maybe often, maybe even usually.
Unfortunately, I think poor contextual reading comprehension, a personality tendency toward outrage, "my good team vs. your bad team" reflexes, and symbol reactiveness are involved in these differences, too, sometimes.12 -
In fairness, I think there is an emotional piece of weight loss that is much stronger for some than it is for others, and that emotional attachment can border on desperation... and desperation can make rational thought, critical thinking, common sense, etc much more difficult. That's part of the reason why what might be implied might not be what is heard. Heck, what is said might not be what is heard.
This is a kind interpretation, and I'm sure it's true . . . sometimes, maybe often, maybe even usually.
Unfortunately, I think poor contextual reading comprehension, a personality tendency toward outrage, "my good team vs. your bad team" reflexes, and symbol reactiveness are involved in these differences, too, sometimes.
Probably, especially in this medium/forum.1 -
So is saying...
"calories are all that matter for weight loss"
the same as
"calories are all that matter for weight loss, but one shouldn't neglect nutrients and overall health."
Because the first gets said quite often. The second gets said fairly regularly, but can easily get drowned out by the first. This is where individual sensitives can come into play regarding what we read/interpret/retain.
I think many people say: "calories are what matter for weight loss, but of course food choice is important for health and may make a difference to how easy it is to stick to a calorie goal." It's what I personally say, specifically in threads that ask about whether food choice matters.
If someone is asking about why they aren't losing, then comments focusing on calories specifically are more common (although many other things are brought up).
You really can't ignore context, IMO.
I also tends to assume that everyone KNOWS food choices matter for health, and therefore am more apt to get into a nutrition discussion if that is the topic, if someone asks whether they matter, or if someone says "I am trying to cut out all sugar and can't seem to manage, but I know I can't lose if I eat cookies." With the latter comment I will never say nutrition doesn't matter, but I will say you can lose eating cookies, of course, since calories are what determine weight loss.6 -
In fairness, I think there is an emotional piece of weight loss that is much stronger for some than it is for others, and that emotional attachment can border on desperation... and desperation can make rational thought, critical thinking, common sense, etc much more difficult. That's part of the reason why what might be implied might not be what is heard. Heck, what is said might not be what is heard.
Interesting.
What I am seeing is some posters, who think they have better diets than most others (with very little reason to assume that), claiming that because others don't insist that eating any white food (or whatever) = doom for a diet or even doom for nutrition, that those others are saying nutrition doesn't matter and, indeed, that a diet of only pixie stix would be cool.
Why do you think there's that desire to twist people's words in such a way? I'm not sure how that would result from emotional food issues or desperation, and I think it's really quite offensive. I would like to better understand, however, so am interested in your thoughts.10 -
This content has been removed.
-
modusoperandi1412 wrote: »So is saying...
"calories are all that matter for weight loss"
the same as
"calories are all that matter for weight loss, but one shouldn't neglect nutrients and overall health."
Because the first gets said quite often. The second gets said fairly regularly, but can easily get drowned out by the first. This is where individual sensitives can come into play regarding what we read/interpret/retain.
I'd feel like I'm being treated like an idiot if someone had to explicitly mention that I need to pay attention to nutrients and health while losing weight.
Yeah, my baseline assumption is that adults know vitamins exist and that they are essential to good health.
If someone comes in stating that they don't know anything about vitamins or eating in a way that meets their nutritional needs, then I may give them some advice on that. But I wouldn't assume someone didn't understand about vitamins just because they were overweight.
It's like how I don't remind people that knives are sharp when they ask for tasty ways to prepare vegetables. Yes, it's important to know. Yes, people get cut. But that doesn't make it an appropriate reminder in a thread about recipes.11 -
Context is real as well. Besides rarely seeing anyone encourage a sugar laden diet, how does one eat a "junk food," fast food, and sugar laden diet while still meeting both calorie and macro goals while still feeling satiated? Easy to do if we ignore the macros, harder if we want to follow the MFP guidance.gatherum89 wrote: »I have a very hard time with the fact that MFP disregards nutrition other than general categories of carbs, protein and fat, when discussing weight loss. It's like this site views weight loss as if it were totally disconnected from essential human health.
It's true that all you need in order to lose weight is a calorie deficit. But that doesn't mean that you can afford to disregard actual nutrition. Sure, you could lose weight by eating nothing but candy bars, as long as you kept under your calorie goal. And you could probably hit all your MFP macros by adding a protein shake or two to that candy bar diet. But your body as a whole organism would not thrive.
"About 85% of Americans do not consume the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommended daily intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for proper physical and mental development."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
"Malnutrition is thought of as a distant issue, but this condition often goes hand-in-hand with eight chronic diseases, and it costs the U.S. $15.5 billion annually in direct costs."
http://www.nutritionnews.abbott/nutrition-as-medicine/malnutrition-in-america.html
Anytime anyone mentions comparative nutritional value on here, they are "woo"ed to death. Even something as mild as stating that whole grain breads and brown rice are healthier than white bread and white rice provokes a chorus of disagreement. As if the key nutrients in complex carbohydrates and the outer germ and bran of grains (fiber, B vitamins, iron, folate, selenium, potassium and magnesium) are somehow meaningless. As if this advice from Mayo Clinic, based on accepted science, doesn't count:
"Whole grains are also linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems."
And MFP is one of the only sites I know of (outside of the Coca Cola website, maybe) where the SCIENTIFICALLY AGREED-UPON FACT that sugar is actually bad for you is treated as some sort of radical opinion. Science is real, people. No matter how many "woos" you give it.
It is not only people who have diabetes who have to think about sugar. To quote just one of the uniform knowledgeable sources:
“Regardless of their Healthy Eating Index scores, people who ate more sugar still had higher cardiovascular mortality,” says Dr. Teresa Fung, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021
It's like most people on MFP are so fixated on losing weight that they want to join together in an aggressive, in-your-face denial of nutritional facts. "There are no bad foods," is like biblical scripture here.
If you fill up your calorie allotment with added sugars and low-nutrient, highly processed junk food and fast food, you are not going to be healthy -- even if you are losing weight. There is a reason to eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods and minimize added sugars. Human beings need the wide range of micronutrients and trace elements that occur in fresh produce, good quality proteins, legumes, etc.
Science is real.
Totally agree with you it’s pretty scary how many downvotes you’re getting.
Many times the obese person will get healthier just by losing weight without regard to micronutrients. The micronutrients can be applied later after getting below the obese stage. It is easier to start simple and make progress vs. jumping in with both feet and demanding perfection in the diet.
It is all about context and priorities.
Speaking of context, the Fung quote lacked context as well.13 -
Here's a thing that bothers me about advice in terms of good foods/bad foods (warning, another text wall coming):
Yesterday, I ate two things at the same time, and posted about it on other social media (for reasons I'll explain later, that had nothing to do with this thread, so it's kind of a random example, not a purposeful cherry-pick).
As context, at the time, I already had eaten 103g of vegetarian protein, almost 60 grams of fats (including 2 kinds of whole nuts, hemp and flax seeds, olive oil), and about 800g of fruits/veggies (not counting more processed plant foods like tofu, miso, chile paste, peanut powder). I had plenty of calories left (ended up a few hundred under goal for the day, which is unusual for me).
One of the two foods was whole, single-ingredient, and even organic. The other was frankly a poster child for ultra-processed. The label nutrients stacked up like this (listing food A, then food B in each case.
Calories: 150 for 28g serving, 130 for 40g serving
Fat: 8g, 0.5g
Sat Fat: 1g, 0g
Trans Fat: 0g, 0g (no "hydrogenated" in either ingredients list)
Cholesterol: 0mg, 0mg
Sodium: 170mg, 0 mg
Carbs: 18g, 34g
Fiber: 1g, 4g
Sugar: 0g, 30g
Protein: 2g, 0g
Vitamin D : 0mcg, not listed
Vitamin A: not listed, 30%
Vitamin C: not listed, 90%
Calcium: 30mg/2%, 2%
Iron: 0.3mg/0%, 2%
Potassium: 50mg, not listed
So, in abstract overall nutrition, or in the context of my day, which is the "bad food", and which is the "good food", and why? Or are both of them "good" or both "bad"? If you need to know more about the foods in order to say, what do you need to know, and why?I ate organic dried mango (food B ), and Taco Flavor Doritos (food A). I posted a picture of them on Facebook because I thought it was hilarious that they were the same color (I have low standards of hilarity).
I also agree with lemur's comment about the "bad foods" concept being unhelpful for psychological reasons, but that "bad overall diet" can be a real thing, and a problem. In fact, a "whole foods" "clean" diet could be bad overall, IMO, though that's admittedly probably a little less likely/common than some alternative bad overall ways of eating.11 -
People simply don't say "ignore nutrition," that is not what is meant by "no bad foods." Indeed, I think "bad foods" is not a helpful concept, in part because nutrition requires context, but I certainly do believe there are bad diets.
I think I'll be paraphrasing you frequently: there are no bad foods but there are bad diets.
8 -
In fairness, I think there is an emotional piece of weight loss that is much stronger for some than it is for others, and that emotional attachment can border on desperation... and desperation can make rational thought, critical thinking, common sense, etc much more difficult. That's part of the reason why what might be implied might not be what is heard. Heck, what is said might not be what is heard.
Interesting.
What I am seeing is some posters, who think they have better diets than most others (with very little reason to assume that), claiming that because others don't insist that eating any white food (or whatever) = doom for a diet or even doom for nutrition, that those others are saying nutrition doesn't matter and, indeed, that a diet of only pixie stix would be cool.
Why do you think there's that desire to twist people's words in such a way? I'm not sure how that would result from emotional food issues or desperation, and I think it's really quite offensive. I would like to better understand, however, so am interested in your thoughts.
By in large, I don't think there is an intentional desire to "twist people's words". I think in conversations that don't spell out clearly all the context that goes along with a point, that different people can/might interpret things differently based on their own beliefs (right or wrong) and desires.
And just for clarity/context, I spend far more time in the general weight loss forum than I do the food and nutrition forum. I feel as though the number of posts that simply say "calories are all that matter" far outweigh the number of posts that say that, but then go on to mention the importance of nutrients/health/etc. My point with all this is that I can absolutely understand why some MFPers can be under the impression that MFP as a collective (not specific people) can sometimes ignore issues of nutrients/health in the face of CICO and weight loss.3 -
In fairness, I think there is an emotional piece of weight loss that is much stronger for some than it is for others, and that emotional attachment can border on desperation... and desperation can make rational thought, critical thinking, common sense, etc much more difficult. That's part of the reason why what might be implied might not be what is heard. Heck, what is said might not be what is heard.
Interesting.
What I am seeing is some posters, who think they have better diets than most others (with very little reason to assume that), claiming that because others don't insist that eating any white food (or whatever) = doom for a diet or even doom for nutrition, that those others are saying nutrition doesn't matter and, indeed, that a diet of only pixie stix would be cool.
Why do you think there's that desire to twist people's words in such a way? I'm not sure how that would result from emotional food issues or desperation, and I think it's really quite offensive. I would like to better understand, however, so am interested in your thoughts.
By in large, I don't think there is an intentional desire to "twist people's words". I think in conversations that don't spell out clearly all the context that goes along with a point, that different people can/might interpret things differently based on their own beliefs (right or wrong) and desires.
And just for clarity/context, I spend far more time in the general weight loss forum than I do the food and nutrition forum. I feel as though the number of posts that simply say "calories are all that matter" far outweigh the number of posts that say that, but then go on to mention the importance of nutrients/health/etc. My point with all this is that I can absolutely understand why some MFPers can be under the impression that MFP as a collective (not specific people) can sometimes ignore issues of nutrients/health in the face of CICO and weight loss.
And interestingly, I feel very strongly that the # of posts that just say "calories are all that matters" are far outnumbered by posts that go into more detail, and are easily offset by the number of posts that chime in to tell people to just focus on eating "clean", no white foods, no sugar, etc.
I spend a lot of time here (far, far too much!) and I don't know how it's possible I keep missing these threads where a newbie asks a very open ended question about what or how to eat, and the majority of posts just say "calories". I mean, there are posts that have bad timing and get shoved down the recent list unfortunately fast, so maybe there are posts that just get one or two incomplete replies and then sink into oblivion. And I see posts where the OP is clearly already striving for a healthier diet, so there is no need to tell them to mind nutrition while assuring them that calories determine weight loss. But I just never see these constantly criticized threads where a naive and unsuspecting OP is given the impression that a good amount of us think nutrition is unimportant.
I've also never seen someone post that they were misled by the MFP forums into eating a junk diet and now they are skinny and sick. I see lots of posts from people who used to think their diet had to be perfect, but once they learned here that it was okay to eat treats, they were actually successful at losing weight. Literally the only time this comes up is in threads like this where posters say we don't care about nutrition and don't supply enough context.
I think this post sounds pissier than I want it to, but I can't figure out how to change that
I mean, everyone sees what they want to see, I just think this whole nutrition argument that keeps popping up is asking us to solve problems that don't exist. I just don't see anyone being led into a life of junk food and poor health here. Every thread I go into, I try to see if the OP is being led in the right direction. And the most frustrating thing is the threads where the OP gets lots of good advice, but only responds to the reply that gives them a list of good foods and bad foods and supplements and detoxes and I know they will spend the next month trying desperately to eat "healthy" but still eating too much. 16
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions