What the hell kind of chips are these? Are they just regular chips soaked in oil?
I get your point but no chips I've seen come close to that bad.
Some people are really weird about nutrition, let's talk about it
- Thread starter Kinitari
- Start date
- Status
What the hell kind of chips are these? Are they just regular chips soaked in oil?
I get your point but no chips I've seen come close to that bad.
Everdred
Member
Basics would be cutting out processed foods. Plenty of fruits and vegetables. Moderate to low amounts of meat. Most importantly, no added sugar or vegetables seed oils.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Okay, so if I just ate potatoes, dates, mangoes and homemade bread all day (is that processed? What's processed?) I'm better off than if I eat fast food but watch all my calories? Better off in what way? What's going to happen to me?
What malnutrition issues should I be careful of? I know someone who had a serious iron defeciency, but I think it was a medical issue because she was given iron pills and not just told to eat more things with iron in it.
You mentioned the abstract and it's nature to turn religious, so let's get explicit here - are there malnutrition issues we're dealing with in the West I'm not aware of? If I sound snarky I apologize, I'm trying not to.
umop_3pisdn
Member
It's not something that I know a lot about, but I imagine it's mostly a problem for people with dietary neuroses or something.
But in the abstract, calories don't render that clear of a picture beyond obesity. We probably all know at least one person that seems to never eat any vegetables, and it does seem like there's something wrong with that, right? Or in the abstract, we can imagine situations where someone is really judicious about not getting too much calories, but if they only eat high calorie low nutrient food, that kind of eating pattern would arguably be an eating disorder, and they'd probably wind up with one or a few deficiencies.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Nutrition science is complicated and expensive. Bariatric ward studies have to pay people to basically live in a lab. Cohort and other longitudinal studies, well these things take time. Observational studies can be useful for preliminary research, but can also be misleading and sometimes just outright false. Using rats can be useful but taken with a grain of salt, as our metabolism differs.
News outlets are terrible at science reporting. Hence, "everything gives you cancer," or, "why can't they make up their mind? One day it's healthy the next day it will kill you or make you fat"
Diet and fitness industry is there to make money and can be egregious. Fuckwits such as Gary Taubes, David Perlmutter, Food Babe, Dave Aspery; I can go on forever.
Decades of government misled advice, such as the amount of carbs, drinking milk, etc.
News outlets are terrible at science reporting. Hence, "everything gives you cancer," or, "why can't they make up their mind? One day it's healthy the next day it will kill you or make you fat"
Diet and fitness industry is there to make money and can be egregious. Fuckwits such as Gary Taubes, David Perlmutter, Food Babe, Dave Aspery; I can go on forever.
Decades of government misled advice, such as the amount of carbs, drinking milk, etc.
Im pretty particular about not buying any foods that have carrageenan in it. Its in alot of stuff. Some brands of almond milk, most meal replacement drinks, even some brands of turkey bacon.
If carrageenan is so bad why isnt it banned? well, in most countries its banned in baby formula.. so thats saying something...
If carrageenan is so bad why isnt it banned? well, in most countries its banned in baby formula.. so thats saying something...
ScatheZombie
Member
Fad diets are not healthy. They may result in intended weight loss (or gain), but that's also the result of malnutrition too.
You can be swole as fuck and still have dangerously high cholesterol.
The difference is that people focus on weight and physical appearance. When your actual health is dependent on things like blood pressure, blood sugar, heart rate, flexibility, balanced muscular strength, low 'bad' cholesterol and high 'good' cholesterol, consistent energy levels, etc.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
What are your sources saying that it is bad? Because it's a damn good alternative to gelatin if you are vegan.
http://www.foodsciencematters.com/an-abridged-history-of-research-into-the-safety-of-carrageenan/
Being banned doesn't automatcally mean toxic. A lot of legislation is based on public opinion, not scientific consensus.
Everdred
Member
Well the list of foods you choose is interesting... Not sure why you would only eat those foods but fine, let me add food variety to my list. The more varieties of food, the more likely to meet your optimal nutrition and be in a healthier state to fight infection and disease.
As far as what you asked... I don't know. That's such little variety of food and I don't know the nutrients of each and what you would order at a fast food.
Interestingly though, potatoes are one of the very few foods that you can live solely off of for a solid period of time. They have fat, protein, and carbs, plus some essential vitamins/minerals.
This sounds about right.
I had a conversation about this with some friends a while ago, well, more of a venting session. Both are pretty well informed on the actual science of nutrition (one has a diploma in health nutrition) and they said at this point they actively avoid any conversations about it. Most people don't realize their own ignorance and are too stubborn to change their beliefs.
I think the way that nutrition is reported on in the news and on local radio stations is a big contributor to the problem. They find some study that says "a glass of red wine a day will add 5 years to your life!" then 2 months later tell you "red wine is causing every cancer always!" so the average person is left with the sense that there is no empirical nutritional truth. Then, they just start believing what makes them feel good about themselves. "Like dark chocolate? I saw a study that says eating it every day prevents throat cancer!"
There is a complexity to nutrition, which, like the quote above gets at, leads people try to understand it with overly simplistic, essentially superstitious beliefs.
Beer Monkey
Member
It doesn't have anything to do with Pakistan. The salt deposits are hundreds of thousands of years old, complete with Uranium and Plutonium.
And of course, they are safe trace amounts. More toxic than pesticides, but safe because the amount is so low. Hence the teaching opportunity. Being freaked out about a few parts per billion of glyphosate but being cool with Uranium is dumb as fuck.
Our food is safe as fuck in general.
Muskieratboi
Member
Totally agree with the OP. Calories are most important to look for in general, you don't HAVE to worry about the food source.
The majority of doctors recommend sticking to the unsaturated fats and natural (as in, no additional) sugars at least if you can help it though.
'Sall about Moderation IMO.
The majority of doctors recommend sticking to the unsaturated fats and natural (as in, no additional) sugars at least if you can help it though.
'Sall about Moderation IMO.
Thats good to know. Thanks.
Im not vegan though so I think I'll cover all my bases. The corporation that owns that site kinda makes it a little suspect.
One Eyed Willy
Member
Buttermilk
Member
I stopped drinking bottled or tap water years ago. Lately I just been IVing it.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Calories are the most useless indicator of nutrition. They are absolutely pointless in the grand scheme of things.
Example:
Which one is more nutritious. 500 calories of Doritos or 500 calories of vegetable beef soup.
The answer is probably not Doritos.
Example:
Which one is more nutritious. 500 calories of Doritos or 500 calories of vegetable beef soup.
The answer is probably not Doritos.
Dark_castle
Junior Member
Nutritious food means nothing if one eats little amount of it and eat empty calories for the large majority of the time. People who are overweight w/ high body fat % tends to eat empty calories predominantly, because nutritious food tends to release energy slowing or more filling, things like protein, greens, complex carbs, healthy fats.
entremet
Member
Probably the best recent development in obesity research is that of food reward by Stephan Guyenet.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/06/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_28.html
It's a great rule of thumb.
But the cliff notes is that our modern food landscape is filled with hyper palatable foods (read: tasty and addictive), which short circuits our hunger mechanisms and causes to overeat calories.
Yes you can calorie count and exerts tons of self discipline avoiding junk at home, out and all, but you're fighting a huge uphill battle. You will need a battle plan to lose fat and stay slim.
All restaurant food (fine dining, fast food, and packaged food) is designed to do this. And guess what? Less and less people are cooking.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/06/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_28.html
It's a great rule of thumb.
But the cliff notes is that our modern food landscape is filled with hyper palatable foods (read: tasty and addictive), which short circuits our hunger mechanisms and causes to overeat calories.
Yes you can calorie count and exerts tons of self discipline avoiding junk at home, out and all, but you're fighting a huge uphill battle. You will need a battle plan to lose fat and stay slim.
All restaurant food (fine dining, fast food, and packaged food) is designed to do this. And guess what? Less and less people are cooking.
The problem with nutrition is that people don't even read the science of it (which in itself isn't always conclusive), rather they often chose what to believe themselves and make it their gospel which is kinda weird.
Like why would I want to say things that I don't really know is true or not?
Like why would I want to say things that I don't really know is true or not?
The obesity epidemic disagrees with you.
I don't eat a lot of packaged food, but calories are literally the first thing I look at and IMO the most important piece of information on the label are calories and serving size.
But what is "success" in this images context? All that might be true for getting in shape, but if we want to gauge what constitutes as a "healthy" diet, life expectancy should be the metric.
Don't know about this exactly, but there's lactose intolerance pills that work like that should right?
And most of these concerns can be trivial but are magnified into huge issues by people. But calorie counting is not the only quantifiable aspect of nutrition that's important. Take diet soda as an example of nasty as shit that's devoid of calories.
But science isn't a gospel. There's contradicting evidence being found all the time and errors made by the research staff are not unusual. Worst of all, disregarding conflict of interest in research sponsored by the food industry is probably worse.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
I love this chart from Renaissance Perodization. Their team is made up of multiple PhD level professionals who back up their claims with scientific articles.
Look how little food composition (organic foods) matters.
That seems to be a chart on how to diet and have a shapely body. I don't think the chart would be remotely the same if it was more focused on nutrition and overall health. Just think about that really skinny person who consumes nothing but garbage and still remains slim. He would fit into that chart perfectly, but what are his vitals and vitamin levels like?
entremet
Member
The problem is that calories themselves are reductive.
They don't measure fiber, which governs satiety. And calorie counting diets are notoriously difficulty to adhere for most of the population.
They also trick people in eating low calorie and low satiety foods. Some of these foods, even low calorie ones have high food reward, meaning they make you hungry.
Humans are not calculators. Hunger is a huge driver in eating and if you feel hungry, you will eat. Willpower can only get so far. And willpower is a finite resource.
This is why most diets fails, especially low calories ones.
Success depends on your goals. Do you want to lose weight? Gain size and strength?
The foods they promote aren't even close to junk foods. They're not saying "hey eat whatever the fuck you want if it fits your calories". Junk foods typically have an awful macro composition so you won't get eating junk alone.
Shadowhelper
Banned
There's a difference between someone thinking and conversing with you that a certain way is healthier and on insisting you partake in this.
GF is mostly a vegetarian, rarely will have chicken, but she doesn't love that I love read meat.
And similarly to the OP, in a kinda reverse way, is telling me constantly not to worry about alcohol per se, when I am trying to lose a few pounds, to just count calories. Or be active.
I find nutrition habits can be a problem in relationships sometimes.
GF is mostly a vegetarian, rarely will have chicken, but she doesn't love that I love read meat.
And similarly to the OP, in a kinda reverse way, is telling me constantly not to worry about alcohol per se, when I am trying to lose a few pounds, to just count calories. Or be active.
I find nutrition habits can be a problem in relationships sometimes.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Yea junk food only ever makes me hungrier. Last night I binged when I got home from work. Ravaged cheese doodles, ice cream, popcorn and pretzels within a half hour. At no point during or after did I feel satiated. Barring the popcorn, what I had was terrible and I've had the problem of avoiding these foods my entire life. Luckily I'm 6', 183 pounds and in shape but I'll never lose the remaining abdomen fat I have by consuming this crap. Admittedly I always saw the most success when I strictly reduced my calories to no more than 1500 a day. Right now it's probably back up to 2400. But this is not something I can adhere to anymore because I'm also trying to put on considerably more muscle, so a calorie deficiency is difficult to manage when I feel more hungry because of all the exercise.
Imperfected
Member
Pink salt makes me giggle because it's just salt that's high in impurities. People out there specifically going out of their way to pay more for a worse product.
Good point about satiety.
My point overall was that calories matter a lot, but it should assume that people are choosing good foods. IMO it's a chicken and egg scenario. If you are picking good foods (for example fruits and vegetables) then they are probably low calorie.
SuperEpicMan
Banned
I think people end up having issues when they religiously follow diets despite everyone being different. My weight rarely changes and it is likely because what I eat is relatively consistent, and I am not trying to eat the recommended 2500 calories a day (for men). If I did I would probably be overweight. I also try to respond to the way my body feels, if I wake up and feel like my stomach is a bit bloated or sore (I have IBS), or if I don't feel hungry, then I will either only have a small breakfast, or weight and have a snack mid morning. Also 90% of the food I eat is made fresh, so I know its relatively nutritious.
Recently I had a family member who was talking about a diet they were on, basically everything was counted in sins, and you have so many sins a day, some foods however are sin free so you can eat as much as you like of those. So she would say she could have a a huge plate full of carrots or something as if they don't have calories in them. She was also saying its not the calories, but the type of food which you eat. She would basically forget about calories whilst on this diet as long as she follows the guidelines.
For me, I think 500 calories of chocolate, is going to sustain someone just as long as 500 calories of broccoli, so as long as you eat the right amount of calories, from anything, you will gain, lose or maintain your weight. The nutritional value of what you eat will probably have a impact on how healthy you body is, so things like how you smell, your skin, nails and hair, and also how healthy your digestion is, maybe how tired you feel.
Recently I had a family member who was talking about a diet they were on, basically everything was counted in sins, and you have so many sins a day, some foods however are sin free so you can eat as much as you like of those. So she would say she could have a a huge plate full of carrots or something as if they don't have calories in them. She was also saying its not the calories, but the type of food which you eat. She would basically forget about calories whilst on this diet as long as she follows the guidelines.
For me, I think 500 calories of chocolate, is going to sustain someone just as long as 500 calories of broccoli, so as long as you eat the right amount of calories, from anything, you will gain, lose or maintain your weight. The nutritional value of what you eat will probably have a impact on how healthy you body is, so things like how you smell, your skin, nails and hair, and also how healthy your digestion is, maybe how tired you feel.
Look europeans average BMI vs life expectancy and health index. There's little correlation. Italy has both the highest life expectancy and health index, but has higher BMI than France , Netherlands, Norway and Ireland.
Obesity % may be a better predictor, but it's still not such a clear correlation.
The zone at the borders between France and Germany have for example extremely similar diets, but significantly different life expectancy and health indexes... the difference? French culture favor wine instead of beer during meals.
entremet
Member
Italy will be changing. They have one of the highest child obesity rates in the world right now.
That's what poverty do for you yeah , but i don't see how it is relevant ti my point
Source?
Things like this is what makes these conversations so weird, if you are stating it as a fact you need to back it up with a reliable source. For all we know you could have made it up.
And what are they changing?
entremet
Member
http://easo.org/media-portal/country-spotlight/obesity-in-italy/
Greece is also up there.
Basically the rise of hyper palatable convenience foods. Foods that are cheap and don't trigger satisfaction.
Our kids are the fattest in Europe. After the crisis numbers just skyrocketed, it's really bad. The traditional diet is becoming too expensive compared to trash foods.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
500 calories of chocolate will not satiate someone in the same way 500 calories of broccoli would. I can eat 500 calories worth of cinnamon bun right now and I'll still be incredibly hungry. That's because my blood sugar and insulin are going to sky rocket and I'll feel no more full after eating it. Carbohydrates make you hungrier.
entremet
Member
You're getting there but let's not vilify carbs. It's a huge food group. And many populations eat them without dealing with widespread obesity.
Try eating 500 calories of sweet potatoes and tell me how full you feel after?
And that's mostly carbohydrates.
The reason low carb diets are effective is because they also get rid of the hyper palatable foods--fries, cookies, ice cream, pizza, cheeseburgers, etc.
Those are high in carbohydrates but also hyper palatable, addicting, high in fat, and high in calories.
Oppo
Member
what i find more fascinating, is how militant / preachy people get about it.
like it's one thing to have your own views on nutrition, ok. but so many feel the need to... proselytize this "secret info" they have... some other mechanism happening there that i don't quite get. seems to be linked (in extremes) to kookier stuff like anti vax views, hippie power crystals, chemtrails or whatever.
i guess folks just want to believe they have the Real Truth. wake up sleeple etc
for my part i went from thinking about macros all the time to just plain calorie counting and have lost about 4 kg in 3 months. *shrug*
like it's one thing to have your own views on nutrition, ok. but so many feel the need to... proselytize this "secret info" they have... some other mechanism happening there that i don't quite get. seems to be linked (in extremes) to kookier stuff like anti vax views, hippie power crystals, chemtrails or whatever.
i guess folks just want to believe they have the Real Truth. wake up sleeple etc
for my part i went from thinking about macros all the time to just plain calorie counting and have lost about 4 kg in 3 months. *shrug*
Spuck-uk
Banned
Arguably the 200 calories of apples at least as bad for you.
It's really the preachiness that gets me. I'm not going around telling people to count their calories to stay healthy - but I have to hear why the things eating during dinner might be secretly poisoning me.
I've also started counting calories (and exercising) - which is why I recently brought it up when I told someone I was trying to lose weight and they asked me if I was eating organic. I just said 'nah, I'm not really into that, I'm just calorie counting' - and they looked at me like I was crazy. Mind you, I've lost 18lb in 3 months, and I've never been in as good shape in my life, and this person is obese.
I've been trying to not coddle people when they talk to me about stuff like this, and people haaaaate it.
I'm not sure what this means. A lot of people in the thread are talking about health tied to eating aside from calories - and it's not that I think it doesn't matter, it's that I have no idea why people focus on that so much more than calories when calories so clearly matter for the developed world. The health complications from obesity are staggering.
What are these other health issues that seem to have people so worried about nutrition? I think nutrition is important, like I think drinking water is important - but I'm not particularly worried about people not getting enough water in the West.
Always-honest
Banned
Those are just people who do that no matter what they believe.
It's a sign of being a bit dumb i think. They never doubt anything they say.
- Status