Good or Bad Food?
Options
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
I'm allergic to walnuts, so cake is better for me!
Ok that's completely understandable
I'm allergic to a lot of seafood1 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
Eating a small piece of cake and 1 tonne of walnuts wouldn't work out very well for me. Doesn't make either of those foods good or bad however.
Walnuts are heart healthy and cake is not <necessarily>3 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.
It's an opinion. Not scripture. Cake has less health benefits than walnuts.
Depends on what you need at that moment in time. If I need some carbs for energy, cake would be better for me personally at that time. (Plus, like I said above, I'm allergic to walnuts.)
No one food is "unhealthy". No one food is always "healthy". This is real life. Eat all the foods - get plenty of fruits and veggies and protein and fiber, throw in a couple of fun foods like cake, stay within your calorie allowance. That's it. That's all it takes.17 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.10 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake4 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I wish I was the same
. I would rather have a problem moderating a "sometimes" food than a pantry food.
I don't eat cake often because it's not an "often" food, but when I do, a slice is more than enough. Walnuts (or any nuts, really), on the other hand, are dangerous to my weight management because a handful is never enough. I would need to eat 2-3 times the calories of a slice of cake worth of nuts to be satisfied.8 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I don't think anyone gave you a disagree for saying cake and walnuts should be on the same playing field. They are very different foods. I think you got them because you seemed to suggest that walnuts should be lower because of some type of health virtue.
Oh and I didn't give you a disagree. You are entitled to your opinion just do not let it get in the way of your progress.
I do not like cake so it is easy for me to control my portion. On the other hand I made some dark chocolate and peanut butter rice krispie treats for the holidays that I found ridiculously addictive. I won't be making those again anytime soon.
2 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I don't think anyone gave you a disagree for saying cake and walnuts should be on the same playing field. They are very different foods. I think you got them because you seemed to suggest that walnuts should be lower because of some type of health virtue.
Oh and I didn't give you a disagree. You are entitled to your opinion just do not let it get in the way of your progress.
I do not like cake so it is easy for me to control my portion. On the other hand I made some dark chocolate and peanut butter rice krispie treats for the holidays that I found ridiculously addictive. I won't be making those again anytime soon.
I bake cakes as a profitable hobby and everytime I gain weight it's because I make too many at the house and I get carried away quickly. I love cake. I love walnuts. And those rice krispies sound amazing. I'll allow a small treat here and there but for me, I have to watch it2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I wish I was the same. I would rather have a problem moderating a "sometimes" food than a pantry food.
I don't eat cake often because it's not an "often" food, but when I do, a slice is more than enough. Walnuts (or any nuts, really), on the other hand, are dangerous to my weight management because a handful is never enough. I would need to eat 2-3 times the calories of a slice of cake worth of nuts to be satisfied.
Exactly this. This is exactly what I'm saying1 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I don't think anyone gave you a disagree for saying cake and walnuts should be on the same playing field. They are very different foods. I think you got them because you seemed to suggest that walnuts should be lower because of some type of health virtue.
Oh and I didn't give you a disagree. You are entitled to your opinion just do not let it get in the way of your progress.
I do not like cake so it is easy for me to control my portion. On the other hand I made some dark chocolate and peanut butter rice krispie treats for the holidays that I found ridiculously addictive. I won't be making those again anytime soon.
I bake cakes as a profitable hobby and everytime I gain weight it's because I make too many at the house and I get carried away quickly. I love cake. I love walnuts. And those rice krispies sound amazing. I'll allow a small treat here and there but for me, I have to watch it
Those rice krispie treats were pure evil. If MFP ever created a bad list of food they should be at the top.
Most people love cake so I can imagine you make a fair amount of money. I am generally not a sweet eater at all but those rk treats put a spell on me.
Mostly my treats are salty snacks so if I were going to have a problem it would more likely to be with the walnuts. Luckily I am conditioned now to be extra cautious around any nuts.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Not in my experience, as plenty of cakes have as much fat, or nearly as much fat, as carbs. For example, a piece of Portillo's chocolate cake (just because it is easy to find the nutrition information) has 329 cals from fat, and 344 from carbs. Pretty close. That's consistent with the kind of breakdown I see in dessert type items I make at home, for the most part (although there are exceptions that are disproportionately fat or carb). Of course, if you buy these at the grocery store it is sometimes the case that they are lower fat to try and lower cals, but usually those are all that tasty by comparison.
I otherwise agree with your point, but it is a personal mission to stop people from stereotyping most high fat dessert foods as simply "carbs"--too often they (although not you, of course) go on to claim that carbs are therefore the problem in everyone's diet and are unhealthy and the devil, blah, blah.
Anyway, great post, I just had to be nitpicky since it's my hobby horse.7 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Why is that ridiculous? Calories are calories. If you eat a surplus of calories from walnuts, you will gain weight. If you eat a deficit of calories from cake, you will lose weight. That's how weight loss works. MFP didn't make that up.
Nutrition is another issue, but MFP gives you plenty of tools there. You can track all your macro nutrients and some micronurtients. So you can make plenty of nutrition based decisions from that.
However for most people who are overweight or obese, the healthiest thing they can do for themselves is lost weight and get to a normal weight. Eating cake at a normal weight is healthier than nuts of you are obese. One of the great things from this app is it frees you of unhelpful moral judgements about food being "good" or "bad". Good food is food that helps you stay in your calorie goal, bad food is food that makes it difficult to stay in your calorie goal.
It's an opinion. Not scripture. Cake has less health benefits than walnuts.
Why would this matter? Are you planning on eating only one or only the other? You point is a strawman. Nobody eats only cake or only walnuts. The point, that you are ignoring, is it's not helpful to look at foods in isolation and judge them good or bad. It depends on the overall context of a total diet.
You keep identifying it as an opinion but most mature adults are able to vary their opinions in the light of new facts. Having trouble moderating an individual food might make that food less healthy for you. But that doesn't make it an unhealthy food by definition.14 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
What does that have to do with which one has more calories? (Anyway, that's going to depend on the amount of each you consume.)
You do realize that it's possible to log in MFP and ALSO focus on eating a healthful diet, right? Many of us here are nutrition nerds and are very into eating nutritionally-dense foods and a well-rounded, balanced diet for the most part, but also realize that calories are what determine weight gain, loss, or maintenance.1 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I wish I was the same. I would rather have a problem moderating a "sometimes" food than a pantry food.
I don't eat cake often because it's not an "often" food, but when I do, a slice is more than enough. Walnuts (or any nuts, really), on the other hand, are dangerous to my weight management because a handful is never enough. I would need to eat 2-3 times the calories of a slice of cake worth of nuts to be satisfied.
Exactly this. This is exactly what I'm saying
How is this what you are saying? It seems quite different. Perhaps you aren't explaining yourself well and could elaborate.5 -
If a person was close to starving to death, which would be good between cake and walnuts? Probably cake - it will be far easier to put in a lot of calories in a short time with less digestive issues.
I point this out because I would say good and bad do not exist on their own, only in a context, relative to a goal.
Having an app tell you what food is good or bad is having the app tell you what your values and goals are. I prefer to determine those for myself, and figure out what metrics bring me closer or further away from that.10 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
So, did you think MFP made it up that walnuts have fewer calories than cake? (Depending on the cake!) It’s physics. Ignore it if you want, but it is what it is. Most cake is primarily carbs. Walnuts are primarily fat. And carbs have fewer calories per gram than fat, so the same weight of most types of cake probably has fewer calories than the equivalent weight in walnuts. That doesn’t mean you should eat cake. It doesn’t mean you should eat walnuts! It means you have to use your brain to figure out which food will help you meet your nutritional goal and your calorie goal.BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
If you’re trying to lose weight and you eat a boatload of walnuts every day you are probably gonna have a problem staying within your calorie limit. On the other hand, you can eat literally nothing but cake and still lose weight, provided you’re eating at a caloric deficit. Some researcher literally did this with Twinkies just to prove a point.
There are valid reasons not to eat nothing but Twinkies - such as scurvy - but weight loss doesn’t require the eating of only “healthy” foods.
Heck, health itself doesn’t require eating nothing but “healthy” food! When I run a race, I eat sports jellies made of nothing but sugar and binding ingredients to keep my blood glucose up. That is healthy for me at that moment, even though it’s ultra processed and 100% carbs. If you want to determine the true health factors of what you eat, there are no shortcuts. You have to learn what your body needs, when, and why, and use your brain, instead of listening to some guru who gets paid to give one-size-fits-all advice. If I need a nice dose of omega 3s walnuts might be a great choice. If I have already eaten half an avocado and a bunch of almonds and I only have 25 calories left in my budget for the day, they might be a foolish choice and green veggies might make me feel fuller while staying in my calories. If I just ran a half marathon I for sure don’t want to eat flipping walnuts, I want some carbs.
I don't think cake is good for you. I think walnuts are better. That's all
You are welcome to your own opinions, but you don’t get your own set of facts. Speaking of opinions, one of mine is that ignoring reality and insisting on your own set of facts even after you’ve been shown to be mistaken isn’t a good way to live.
Cake is fine for many people in many circumstances. Walnuts can actually be deadly to people with nut allergies. One is not always good for you and the other is not always bad for you or vice versa. But, you know, feel free to keep believing whatever you decided about the world before you got the facts, and let us know how that works out. So far, it seems to have caused you to stop using the database because reality offends you.10 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
You are. 🤷🏼♀️8 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »Wow. Ok. It's just my opinion. I don't think cake is good for you and walnuts are better for you. The end
Does that mean you think all the many possible individual components of cake aren't good for you? Eggs or flour perhaps not good for you in any circumstances?
How about if you had walnut cake?
Or is it because when combined you think those components somehow lose their nutritional value? Fruit (or walnuts) good for you but not when in a cake?
Really not following how your opinion works in the real world.
BTW - I'm not a huge fan or consumer of cakes but my best cake experience was a long way into a 130 mile ride and a couple of pieces of homemade cake really hit the spot and were perfect cycling fuel as well as being enjoyable. Walnuts really wouldn't have been superior in any way in those circumstances (taste, enjoyment, nutrition).6 -
BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement. You need a certain amount of calories to maintain your present physical form and any and all activity you perform each day. If you eat that amount your weight will stay the same. If you eat more your body will store some of it. If you eat less your body will use stored energy to make up the difference.
The amount of calories found in a walnut is the amount of energy it can provide you. It is not an indication of quality. Understanding that walnuts carry a big calorie price tag is very helpful in weight management. Many people make the mistake of thinking "healthy" food will provide healthy results. It does not work that way. Everything needs to be portion controlled. The funny thing is that a person who doesn't log and is trying to lose weight may be safer with cake because it is generally understood you need a very small portion. That same person may be snacking on way too many walnuts and failing to lose weight or possibly even gaining.
I get you. Calories aside, I just don't think cake should be considered same as walnuts. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. It's my opinion. Idk about you but I have a hard time eating a small portion of cake. I don't eat a whole bag of walnuts either. I never thought in a million years I'd have these many disagrees over my opinion of cake
I didn't click "disagree" on your post, partly because I womanned up and explained why I disagree, in an "essay".
I did that because this thread was originated by someone who wondered why MFP didn't have some kind of good foods/bad foods categorization, and in that sense (per the terms of service) we're supposed to keep focus on the point of the question, ideally not get sidetracked into branches off from that point.
Cake is not the same as walnuts. It has dramatically different nutritional properties, and different calories. In your initial post on this thread, you said:BuffaloChixSalad wrote: »I do understand what you are asking. I quit logging a while back because cake was less calories than walnuts and I thought that was ridiculous. I wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food.
I do disagree with that (for reasons I said), but I also find it very odd that you "wish there were a way to determine the health factors of each food" but "quit logging . . . because cake was less calories than walnuts".
Logging is exactly the thing that helps many of us understand the "health factors of each food", specifically:
1. Which foods are good sources of particular nutrients (because foods vary widely, even among (heh) "good" ones),
2. How those nutrients fit into reasonable nutritional goals (because we have macronutrient and micronutrients goals in the logging process, and we can even customize those goals if we want to, though the default goals are pretty good for most people), not to mention
3. How many calories it will "cost" us to get those nutrients from particular foods in reasonable, satisfying portions.
Think of calories as your budget, and nutrients as things like rent, utilities, going out to a movie, etc. The question is how to arrange your calorie budget to get good nutrition, and - ideally - enjoy life at the same time. Cake is usually a "discretionary income" kind of food: We can buy some with our leftover calories, after the rent (macronutrients) and utilities (micronutrients) are paid for . . . unless we'd prefer some walnuts to cake.
To put it more briefly, it sounds like you quit the very process that is designed to answer your questions about health and food, because it was somehow distressing to you to learn that "cake was less calories than walnuts".
Obviously, it's fine for you to do whatever you like for any reason, but that seems odd to me.
And my "essay" was trying - quite imperfectly, it appears - to speak to the originator of the thread about how logging is a useful tool that can help us understand the relationships among food choice, nutrition, and calories, and better balance them to meet our personal goals, gustatory as well as nutritional.
I don't feel any animosity toward you, or your opinions. On the contrary, I wish you success in both weight management & health. :flowerforyou:18 -
I can have my cake and eat walnuts it, too. Best of both worlds. Everything in moderation. No demonizing needed.7
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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions