"Healthy Food"

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Seattle, Sep 29, 2016.

  1. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    I also happen to think that most forum visiters here would prefer to workout and become lean and muscular while eating ample quantities of foods they enjoy, rather than becoming skinny-fat on some bland-tasting pseudoscientific health diet, assuming they could ever even follow such a diet in the first place.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    No one on here (that I have seen) is talking about banning sugar or anything else. The increase in sugar consumption is what has significantly changed in the last 50 year (including fast food).

    No one is arguing that if you eat too many sweet potatoes or avocados that you won't get fat. However, no one is eating too much of that kind of food. It's not addictive. Most things with sugar do enable overeating.

    You are the only one that I've seen however arguing that junk food is good for you and that a diet with reduced junk food somehow is lacking.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Actually, consumption of pretty much everything has increased.

    I haven't seen any evidence for sugar's allegedly addictive properties in comparison to other foods which ultimately become sugar in the body such as potato starch, especially if eaten after something like a low-calorie green salad which will do much to fill you up in advance. No evidence outside places like the BBC, that is, where uneducated but photogenic journalists regularly pander to popular superstition in order to attract more viewers.

    A diet with "reduced" junk food can be good, depending on what reduction means and what the individual is doing. And yes, junk food can be virtually just as good as any other nutrition source when consumed in moderate quantities under the right circumstances, assuming the remainder of your diet already covers your essential nutrients and any other unfulfilled needs, and you just need extra calories for exercising. Not once have I advocated for substituting junk food as a replacement for something in your diet that fills a core need which the junk can't.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Think about it, Seattle: advice like yours has been peddled since the 1970's, yet it doesn't seem to be working on the general public, does it?
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    What, in your opinion, is my "advice"?

    Alternatively, what is your "advice". Eat junk food after meeting your nutritional needs? That doesn't work on the general public either as they don't stop after they have met their deficient.

    Any type of sugar, including carb, is more addicting than most other foods.

    You're biggest complaint seems to be about the BBC.

    My advice worked before the 1970's. What do you think has changed since the 1970's other than a greater availability of fast food and processed junk food in the grocery stores? People had a little desert from time to time before the 70's as well.
  9. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    In my opinion, your advice consists of almost completely shunning processed fatty, starchy, sugary foods in favour of more natural alternatives.

    My advice is to keep your calorie intake below your body's metabolic requirements in order to lose body fat, while consuming ample quantities of protein, vitamins, minerals and fibre in order to meet your body's nutritional requirements and maintain organ and muscle tissue while losing said body fat. I recommend lots of fibre in particular, mainly in the form of low-calorie vegetables, because not only will it help clean your guts out, but it will also fill you up so you're not feeling as hungry throughout the remainder of the day/meal.

    If you're able to fit "junk" food into such a dietary plan, then you should feel free to do so at your personal discretion rather than trying to deny constant and potentially increasing cravings on sheer willpower alone. If you do eat "junk", make it high quality junk rather than cheap convenience store junk that satiates far less- it's counterproductive to avoid a quick visit to the Belgian chocolatier you happen to be passing by for a small treat, only to later binge on Oh Henry bars at home when you can't stop thinking about it.

    Regardless of your diet, it will be extremely difficult to lose fat while maintaining or increasing your existing muscle mass and avoiding loose skin unless you supplement your diet with regular weightlifting sessions, so I advocate at least a modest amount of weight training too.

    As I've noted, recent studies suggest that long-term satiation is mostly dependent on calories rather than carb vs. protein content of the meal, although protein is still generally considered more satiating in the immediate short-term. Low carb diets are a horrible idea for anyone looking to avoid catabolic muscle and organ tissue breakdown for energy via gluconeogenesis. Even if you're not exercising regularly, you need your carbs; glucose produced in your liver from protein and fat is virtually never converted into glycogen and stored as such, whereas glycogen is absolutely critical in performing any sort of medium or high-intensity activity for more than a few minutes.

    I use the BBC as a poster child for popular media promoting blatant pseudoscience around the world, and because I personally have been watching several BBC documentaries of late which contain frustrating misinformation about dieting and obesity.

    Ice cream's been around since Ben Franklin, cake even longer still. Like I said, people nowadays have access to virtually everything, whenever they want, at a reasonably affordable price. In my opinion, that abundance of everything has been the single biggest change, not simply the availability of junk in and of itself. Orange juice is loaded with as much sugar and calories as Coca Cola with very little fibre mixed in, yet far too many people seem to think of it as an extremely healthy alternative and consume far too much, as they do with all the fruit smoothies and other abundantly available foods that fall somewhere along the spectrum inbetween classical "health" and "junk" foods but not completely into either category.

    Like I said, it's become far too easy for most people to lie to themselves about their own genetic potential for being in excellent physical shape, choosing instead to indulge in cheap, convenient foods with loads of calories and avoid any form of strenuous exercise. It may well have been too easy for me as well, had I not spent most of my childhood being mercilessly picked on and isolated for my outward appearance, which by today's standards would probably only be classified as "chubby" or "skinny-fat" for most of that duration (other than blowing up to 255lbs for a couple of years as a teen/adolescent when my father passed away).

    Look at bodybuilders, professional fighters and health gurus in general; a surprisingly huge proportion of them have experience from their youth of being bullied and marginalized due to either being excessively overweight or else underweight. Most ordinary folks who grew up feeling part of the mainstream simply never acquired the motivation and determination to do something about their personal health when they became more responsible for their own choices and it started to slip. Not many happy, content people are going to seek a radical lifestyle change and start spending 2 hours a day in the gym gritting away under intense pain, especially if so many of their friends and family are letting themselves go at the same time.
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I don't know of many people who think drinking orange juice is much different than any other sugary drink.

    I agree with your comments on the BBC programs regarding weight loss (and the U.S. ones as well). I also think that most "diets" should be avoided. I use the term diet however just to refer to what any of us eat.

    People who are overweight don't have a caloric deficit so your ideas regarding junk food (high quality or otherwise) aren't that relevant. Also, I'm not sure "high quality" junk food even makes sense. At that point it's just food. Chocolate is just "food" with a high enough cacao content and a low enough portion size.

    I don't think any long term way of eating can be based largely on discipline although you do seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. You say that discipline can't be the answer and then blame people for not having the discipline to lift weights for 2 hours a day.

    I think you need enough discipline to change your habits to healthier eating and after that it should stand on its own.

    Fighters, weight lifters, those that you describe as skinny or fat and picked on earlier in life are usually short rather than skinny or fat (and were in fact picked on).

    Fat isn't "bad" but processed foods (high in fat or otherwise) are not the best things to be eating. There's nothing magical to just preparing your own food and eating non-processed food as much as possible while limited sugar and excess carbs.

    I'm 6'1" and weigh 185 lbs and have been as high as 200 lb and was 155 lbs in high school (skinny kid). I'd like to try to get to 175-180 lb range but mainly just to be eating as healthy as feasible. I'm good at 185lb but am not good at 200 lbs. I'm also not implying that I was ever "fat".

    I go to a climbing gym (and rock climbing outside) 3 times a week. I walk 2-4 miles a day. I like Dr. Pepper and donuts and the occasional pizza. I find it's much easier to maintain weight by not drinking any soft drinks and find it harder to do that if I have one very often.

    It's the same with donuts. I do have a donut every now and then and a pizza every now and then. When I do have them now they don't taste as good as they used to. The donuts are too rich and the pizza just isn't as good after the first slice.

    The foods I do eat now make me feel better than what I was eating and are as satisfying.

    I don't disagree with much of what you are saying (regarding the misconceptions). I do disagree with much of what you are saying regarding junk food other than to agree that some desert is fine.

    For anyone trying to lose weight however what you are saying isn't that helpful. Promoting junk food borders on silly. Also suggesting that anyone needing to lose weight "needs" to lift weight isn't correct either. They didn't get fat because they weren't lifting enough weight.

    You can't out exercise a bad diet. Exercise is good for your general health and it can speed up weight loss but only if the diet is good. If they don't like lifting weights, they aren't going to continue doing that any more than eating foods that they don't like.
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2016
  11. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    I guess we hang with different crowds, then (no climbing puns intended).

    Yes, the "diet" term can have several confusing non-equivalent meanings. When it comes to typical long-term eating, I try to refer to that more as "lifestyle".

    By high-quality junk food, I simply mean that it tastes amazing and delivers top satiating value for every calorie, hopefully leading to less calories consumed in total. From a nutritional standpoint I see junk food as simply a mix of carbs and fat with possibly small traces of protein, which may or may not be of use depending on what else you're eating and what kinds of activities you're engaged in. If I'm short on my caloric targets for the day but have already seen to all my other nutritional targets, carbs and fat are all I really need at that point and I may as well enjoy something which feels delicious and rewarding rather than something bland.

    No one needs to work out 2 hours a day to lose weight. I've lost massive amounts of weight in the past through caloric restriction alone, but didn't find it very sustainable long-term with all the stresses I was feeling in life and my undying love for tasty food. Granted I never got anywhere near back to where I was as an obese kid, but I could never hold even 15% bodyfat for more than a few months or a year before just losing control and eating more of everything like before, including far too much of the "healthy" stuff. To be fair, I was going through some extremely rough emotional times back then, and still am to a degree.

    It's been much better for me this time around. Even when exercising seriously and consistently over the last 4 years, there have been plenty of days when I restricted my calories to a level that would make even sedentary people lose body fat, especially in the first 2 years when I was only running less than 1 hour per week, but I have far more motivation and discipline now because I've got actual goals in mind, and a physique that I'm actually proud of for once in my life that I find worthy of maintaining and improving regardless of what I'm doing. Losing weight on its own just turns me into an average guy, whereas losing weight and building muscle turns me into someone people actually stop to look at and want to emulate, which gives me far greater incentive to keep at it.

    When did I say discipline wasn't the answer? Discipline is entirely 100% the answer in my opinion, but one needs to be well-informed to discipline themselves, and the commonly available information isn't sufficient or accurate enough to meet that need, with all the pseudoscientific background noise drowning out the signal. We seem to be agreed that in theory, junk food can be incorporated into a successful weight loss diet even for a sedentary person via net calorie restriction, and I've been doing it for 4 years even when I was starting out on relatively low amounts of cardio, but discipline is the key. In my opinion it's been far easier to maintain discipline when I allowed myself to indulge in modest amounts of junk on a regular basis, but if someone finds it easier to discipline themselves by shunning junk foods altogether, no need to fix what ain't broken. I simply believe that most people will find it far easier to maintain a lifestyle long-term that still allows them to regularly indulge their deepest cravings while still keeping everything in balance, and you seem to think those cravings will disappear over time if you ignore them long enough. I haven't seen evidence of many people suddenly eschewing junk and successfully forgetting about it for the rest of their lives, whereas I've seen lots of formerly-fat people succeeding with the former approach.

    I've known bodybuilders who insisted you'll never look like them if you eat so much as a teaspoon of sugar per day unless you're on drugs, and others who will eat anything you put in front of them as long as they can afford the calories, both getting comparable long-term results even well into their 50's. Discipline comes in many forms and I think it only makes things harder when you try to limit your available options.

    I would agree, if your definition of "healthier" simply focused on the total nutrient intake and not the particular form of the various carbs, proteins and fats providing all those nutrients.

    Shortness is another reason many fitness guys were picked on and motivated to change in youth, but you'll hear plenty of stories from fighters, lifters and competitive bodybuilders about being picked on horribly for excess weight or thinness too. With hard work fat kids can get fit and sexy too, it's a proven fact.

    Well here's the whole gist of it: I advocate for a lifestyle which doesn't require the discipline of a Viking in order to achieve it. You seem to be eliminating an entire middle ground here; It sounds like you're saying "avoid nearly all ___ and ___ or you're virtually guaranteed to be fat for life," which no science has yet reliably established to my knowledge even when restricting studies to specific communities or ethnicities. And yes, I would argue that well over 50% of the population if not much, much, much higher would find that it requires "inhuman" discipline to act as if they weren't completely surrounded by an abundance of processed carbs and fat. I'm advocating that one should indulge cravings in modest quantities so as to avoid even bigger cravings and ultimately a complete dietary rebound.

    As for home cooking, if you have time for it then great, I personally love to cook and bake from scratch when I can. I myself am a believer that if you can prepare something leaner and more nutritious at home that delivers just as much or more taste as something store-bought which is stuffed with fat and sugar to hide the preservatives and lack of quality and freshness, then you should totally go for it. I already mentioned either here or in the related Human Science discussion we were having that I now avoid restaurant bacon and sausages, because they tend to have disgustingly low protein-to-fat ratios without any noticeable benefits to taste and satiety. On the other hand, if you don't have time or the skills to cook at home, it's not going to kill you to eat out and indulge in a few sweets and fats here and there, as long as the macronutrient totals still add up to the right amounts.
  12. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Well firstly I don't know why you can't just switch to diet pop, no study's ever shown aspartame or carbonated water killing anyone in the kinds of quantities you'd be getting from that. Otherwise, it's good to know that you still indulge the occasional craving, although that seems to contradict your notion of simply eschewing junk foods until you forget about them altogether.

    Secondly, I definitely admire the sport of rock climbing and everyone who participates in it, and now that I can actually lift my own body weight with reasonable comfort, it's something I've been thinking about getting into and trying. However, it seems then that just like me, you're also participating in a lot of calorie-burning exercises to maintain your body weight, and we're both trying to argue about what might work best for the average Joe without more than basic levels of physical activity.

    Why can we not leave it then at both approaches potentially working? I never said my way was the only way to reach a goal, only one particular path that I've seen work first-hand (including on myself) and is backed by scientific observation on countless individuals. Your way can also work and I've personally seen small numbers of people appear to succeed with it, but once again it's not the only way. My approach advocates moderately indulging cravings on a regular basis as long as they fit within your required daily nutrient intake, whereas you seem to be the one closing off alternative possibilities by claiming that no one would be able to stick to such a system and must instead get used to eating mostly bland foods, hoping they taste better over time.

    Well good luck convincing more than 5% of the general populace to stay away from junk food altogether (or nearly altogether), because I'm quite confident that 95% or more would say that your recommended diet/lifestyle is utter torture, and torturing yourself isn't an effective, sustainable way to achieve long-term goals.

    No one needs to lift or do much exercise whatsoever to lose weight as long as they restrict calories (as I can personally testify from past experience), but without accompanying weightlifting exercises, those losing large amounts of body fat end up with loads of problematic sagging loose skin accompanied (and somewhat caused by) major losses of muscle mass and even organ tissue. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain or build on those tissues while maintaining a large calorie deficit, if not accompanied by significant strength training. If you search around the web these days, you'll see weightlifting or some other form of resistance training recommended as part of an overall weight loss diet just about everywhere you look.

    Recent research is showing that significant muscle hypertrophy (i.e. growth) is only achieved by exercising at high volume against high resistance levels typically only achieved in weightlifting, sprinting and other select sports, whereas little actual growth is achieved by activities such as walking, distance running or other low-resistance, long-duration sports in general. You can gain strength to a degree from numerous activities in the form of neuromuscular adapation (brain controlling muscle more efficiently, muscle responding more efficiently to brain), but it turns out that building or maintaining significant lean mass can only be effectively accomplished by a select few types of activities involving high intensities and short durations.

    I don't know if you're aware of these kinds of issues, as I'm not sure they'd really be a concern for someone whose body weight is only fluctuating within a 20lbs window (I myself have lost approximately 100lbs of fat and gained roughly 40lbs of muscle in the last 4 years).

    That's a classic statement bodybuilders make all the time. Great abs are built in the kitchen. Agreed 100%.

    Well there's the kicker; if you're massively overweight/obese and seeking to reset your body almost as if it never happened in the first place, there seem to be a lot of indications that some form of high intensity resistance training will be absolutely essential to your overall success, unless you happen to have incredible, medically undocumented genetics, or perhaps you're willing to spend 20 years or more gradually losing it. Long bouts of fat-burning cardio will also speed up the process immensely, especially when seeking to normalize bodyfat distributions that tend to be left somewhat disproportionate after initial weight loss.
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I agree that if you have 100 lbs to lose some weight lifting is probably called for (not absolutely necessary but helpful) but it's not required for those with less to lose and those just trying to maintain.

    I probably don't burn any more calories in 2 hours in the gym than I would in 2 hours of walking. My food isn't "bland". If you are gaining weight rapidly you are doing something wrong and therefore you have to change something.

    It's say that it's important to get used to food that isn't absolutely saturated with salt, fat, and sugar. When all you eat is candy even fruit isn't sweet enough.

    I'm sure whatever you have done has worked for you and would work for some others as would doing anything (vs doing nothing). I've just found in my limited experimenting on myself and from talking to and observing friends who have more to lose that just eating a little healthier doesn't seem to work.

    If you can't, at least initially, really change your diet nothing is going to happen long term. If you tell someone who needs to lose a lot of weight to simply eat pizza a little less often they will lose a couple of pounds for a month and then they'll gain it all back.

    Most people or at least many people think they can't keep it off because they really never learned much about nutrition, cooking, trying a variety of foods and simply tried to just eat salad and then they were hungry and couldn't keep it up.

    Of course people who eat little junk food aren't mainly eating just salad. I rarely eat salad these days.

    To address another point you brought up... when I say you need to get over the sugar craving and then I say I have a donut every now and then there's no inconsistently here. I do still like a donut sometimes but it's not as good as it used to be. It's too rich. I'm not driven to have another one or two the next day.

    You have to get away from donuts, pizza or whatever (IMO) long enough for the craving to go away. If you have something like that later when you are at your desired weight and if you don't go back to eating them frequently enough for the craving to come back that's doable. Some people can't do that easily. I have a hard time doing that with soft drinks so I mainly just don't have them.

    I don't drink diet soda as I don't like the taste, I don't like putting aspertane into my body, I don't need the caffeine and artificial sweeteners do a lot of the same things as sugar in that it's addicting. Water also tastes much better and I hydrate more when I'm not drinking anything else other than a little decaf green tea.
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Not to mention: walking is an activity that our bodies have evolved to perform often, for considerable distances, and even up and down grades. To walk for exercise is to use your body in exactly the way that it evolved to be used.

    Our ancestors survived for thousands of years with no domesticated animals to ride and, of course, with no wheels because making a wheel requires a metal blade, and metallurgy was discovered less than ten thousand years ago. Anywhere they went, they had to walk.

    Rafts were invented much earlier, roughly 50,000 years ago, but they're obviously only useful if you live near water.
  15. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Well, I've been saying that some proper science needs to be injected into the discussion, so let's talk about some.


    Just the other day my trainer told me that I needed to eat more carbs to keep my weight lifting performance up with all the running I've been doing. From the way I was underperforming on my bench presses but recovering quickly between sets, he could tell that my muscle glycogen levels were depleted. I know I can get away with far more than the average Joe- by my most recent estimates, it seems I'm burning upwards of 4000 calories/day on average. However, the point is that even "junk" food can be healthy in a certain context. Take out the 3 slices of meatlover's pizza I had today, and my protein totals for the day are left a bit wanting for my needs; further remove the bowl of Turtles ice cream I had, and I'm dangerously low on dietary fat for maintaining healthy testosterone levels at sub-9% bodyfat on a caloric deficit, and down by another 10g of protein to boot. Take out the 2 gourmet scones and the raspberry custard danish, or the 3 servings of sugary cereal with low-fat artificially sweetened dessert yogurt substituted for milk, or the slice of my own homemade chocolate frosting banana cake or the slice of pumpkin pecan pie, and I'm down by even more protein and low enough on glycogen to crash and burn when I hit the gym tomorrow. As if that's not enough, I also had French toast and ham with artificially sweetened low-calorie syrup first thing after running, so I'm eating like frigging royalty right now as far as taste, quantity and satisfaction, but take any of these things out of my meal plan today and I'm left with a deficiency of one sort or another. All of these supposedly sinful foods are "healthy" for me at the times and in the quantities that I consume them.

    I had some servings of fruit, veggies and nuts to balance things out, so don't think I'm just eating "crap" all day. I drink lots and lots of diet soda and other artificially sweetened drinks, plus cut corners here and there with a few other types of artificially sweetened goods that don't cause stomach problems (try to avoid things with maltitol and sorbitol in more than minute quantitities, those are the ones that literally hate everyone's guts). I space my carbs out throughout the day and night to maximize my body's chance to store them as glycogen, plus it makes them easier to digest, and it's no problem walking away from eating too much when you know another snack is potentially just around the corner. Besides, modest midnight snacks tend to help people sleep better and just kick ass in general. Back when I wasn't burning crazy amounts of calories, I would eat similar foods to all this, but more skewed towards the "healthier" nutrient dense ones as the priority; everything still worked out just fine with plenty of weight loss and muscle gains and lots of delicious desserts at any time of day I wanted.

    There are lots and lots of ways for you to satisfy cravings while avoiding binges. Eating 5+ times a day as opposed to 1 or 2 huge meals (although either option is fine from a nutrtitional standpoint) means you can always look forward to the next meal when you want more of what you've just eaten. I tend to switch things up a lot and try to avoid eating too much of any one thing, variety is truly the spice of life. If I'm eating from a large bag of potato chips, I tend to have one serving or less before clipping the bag shut, and if I'm still craving more comforts I will either start eating another flavour of chip or switch to another type of food altogether and have a nice taste of that. My taste buds are always being delighted with new, unexpected things as opposed to being worn down on 1000 calories of the same thing over and over and over- the first bites are always the best, then it's all downhill with decreasing satisfaction and increasing bloat/guilt unless you switch it up, and I find myself sometimes forcing myself to eat more "junk" just to keep up with my energy and muscle growth needs because with all the variety, I'm generally satisfied on relatively small portions overall.

    Perhaps Seattle, one difference between you and I is that I make a point of having a taste of just about everything, as long as it's high quality delicious food (healthy or otherwise). So alongside all the sweets, fatty meats and fried goodies, I try to make a point of eating salads or other forms of vegetables in large portions, amongst many other elements providing my core nutrition requirements, before I fill the rest with protein and empty calories. When my stomach feels empty and I'm trying to keep the total calories down or avoid binging on main course entrees, nothing beats low-calorie vegetables for filling up much of that empty space and adding extra weight to the bundle.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  16. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Also some more thoughts on obesity and how to curb it in society in general... Going along with what I was saying about better nutritional info and education being available to the masses to allow them to make smarter decisions on their meal plans, the vast majority of us can no longer rely on the "eat until we feel full" model of regulating our bodyweights. If you want to be able to gorge until you physically can't eat another bite without gaining weight, perhaps then some sugar-free vegan-ish high-fibre diet offers the solution you need, but for the general public, learning to count and estimate calories is the only reliable way to reconcile the 21st century food abundance with the ability to know how much to eat of whatever in order to achieve a desired result.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    It seems that the best trick for losing weight = smaller plates.
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    You are aware that you are one of the "masses", right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I don't think the problem is nearly as simple as people just not realizing how many calories are in their (junk) food. The biggest problem is that most of what is around everyone is a food product rather than food.
  19. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    I've frightened people just by walking around in a hoodie at night. Good thing they never saw me solving differential equations back when I had the wrong kind of mass!

    Well whatever products are contributing to the epidemic, going by hunger levels alone really isn't a reliable gauge for maintaining a steady weight unless you're eating the same thing and doing the same activities every single day over long periods. With water weight fluctuations and so many other day-to-day variables, the average person is simply not going to know how much they should eat and when, whether they're eating a tuna sandwich on whole wheat or a greasy bacon burger patty sandwiched between two donuts (I know a burger place that serves this kind of "food", I might just have to hit it up after my next distance run). Knowing or at least being able to estimate the calorie, protein, carb, nutrient and fat content of the foods they eat is by far the most reliable way for an individual to plan a successful diet and see it through to the final stages.
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I don't disagree that it is useful knowledge. I know how to do this without thinking about it too much now only because I did track all of my calories for a month once but I also made it to age 50 without ever having to think about it and was always slender with little to no fluctuation in my weight.

    After that age if I looked at a donut I gained a bit of weight.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The body is really designed so that people don't have to do that sort of thing. After all, this information wasn't available until relatively recent times. If you are exercising all the time (as you may be doing now) and as many people did thought work until recently this wasn't particularly a needed skill either.

    Most people who are overweight are overweight for emotional reasons (depressed, lonely, stressed) and are able to pack on that much weight only due to the kinds of "foods" available now.

    If you lived on a farm and grew your own food and were stressed you still could eat only so much meat and vegetables before it just wasn't appealing to consume more. With junk food, you can eat all day.
  21. Orinda Fernandez Registered Member

    Nice but often times, the healthy food is the expensive ones.
  22. AshtonAsh Registered Member

    Thanks for discussing and great thinks. Favorite food in small volume always welcome even if it is hot dog)
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Why do we crave things that are not good for us? It's not logical. Here is that logic problem again. Yes, i know how long ago we needed the extra calories to store fat in case of famine etc. How we evolved to like calorie dense food but white processed flower isnt recognized by the body as even food, that is how bad it is for you. Yet here we are craving cakes, donuts etc made from it not just the sugar. Pretty stupid actually just as i know some people addicted to coke and its the worst for you despite just the caffeine. I mean logically the bad should outweigh the good in assessment yet here we are with people who are addicted to it.

    But still it does not address how illogical it is for the body to become addicted to the worst substances including drugs, bad carbs etc.

    If i see a jelly filled donut and fried chicken i will usually be drawn to the former rather than a salad. Now i regret it afterwards by feeling sluggish and with all the unhealthy preservatives doing its damage. But the thing is why does my mind and body almost always crave those foods versus a more healthy alternative when it already has experienced the ill effects? Each time it tries to fool me to forget the real after effects. Its not 'logical' but there you go. Each time i have to put mind over matter though every part of me is trying to get me to choose what is not in my best interest.

    Why is life so illogical? Its actually insane.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016

Share This Page