The Iron Will and Positivity Thread

[Farm Boy]

All stemming from the problem that we tend to work best when we walk around fussing with things for 8 to 12 hours a day. I was fit as hell walking soybean fields, and my overweight friend was still overweight, but was still strong fit and energetic when he did it too. Those jobs seem to generally pay like ass when they're economically viable.

 

[Hygro]

All stemming from the problem that we tend to work best when we walk around fussing with things for 8 to 12 hours a day. I was fit as hell walking soybean fields, and my overweight friend was still overweight, but was still strong fit and energetic when he did it too. Those jobs seem to generally pay like ass when they're economically viable.

It does seem non-monetary compensation factors into the equation.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh it does, but money has a way of breaking things when it doesn't work.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

It seems to me that there is an endless stream of nutrition studies pouring out, often not peer-reviewed and which often clash with one another. All I can conclude is that literally everything is unhealthy for human consumption save kale, nuts, beans, and quinoa grown in total isolation from the modern world by an obscure sect of vegan monks and watered with dewdrops gently gathered from the grass of a sacred elfin grove.

These cost at least a talent of silver per basket.

I have lots of nutritional scientists as close friends. they're aware of this problem. they also majorly disagree. According to nutritional science, there are no unhealthy foods. That is oxymoronic. A food, by definition, is something edible which prodives you with some kind of nutrients, right? A poison is not a food, neither is a rock. There is, however, an unhealthy diet. Honestly, I wouldn't give two hoots about "studies" coming out, and definitely look at their funding first and foremost. Fact is, most nutritionists aren't really obsessed with what is "healthy" or not, because that is not a helpful goal in science. "Healthiness" is hard to define and almost impossible to test for unless you invest millions into year long double blind studies. It's not their major concern.

As long as you eat a balanced diet of vegetables, fruits, starches, meat, fish and dairy you are absolutely going to be okay. Any honest nutritionist will tell you that. I think it's honestly mostly journalists, instagram models and nutritionists (these people are usually NOT nutritional scientists) who're going crazy about which foods are healthy and which are not

 

[Synobun]

As long as you eat a balanced diet of vegetables, fruits, starches, meat, fish and dairy you are absolutely going to be okay. Any honest nutritionist will tell you that.

"Balance" is the trick here. And that's different for almost everyone, even with statistics and averages on your side.

One of the worst developments in the past 30 years in the nutrition world, IMO, is the idea that there's one specific ratio that is ideal for everyone. Even in alternative diet science there's a "specific" way of doing that diet, and any deviation or inability to thrive is seen as personal failing.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

It all hinges on balance, you are completely right. A "raw vegan" diet can literaly kill you if you are not careful, same as a carnist diet could. "Balance" in itself however is only really a problem because we have so much freakin choice nowadays. People 200 years ago were not that concerned with balance, they were concerned with "not starving". Of course you can overcomplicate it and look at what the healthiest possible diet is, but you could also just not worry and make sure you eat at least one piece of fruit and a big serving of veges with every meal. But your point is true, everyone needs to adjust their diet to their personal needs and to their body. There is no "this works for everyone" diet.

Thought if you look in scientific literature for what is often called a "mediterranean diet" and somewhat model yours off of that.. You should be good. Most humans, just by virtue of having preferences and not wanting to eat the same stuff all day, already have enough "balance" or variety in their diet.

Nowadays we have such weird problems.. people die of vitamin overdose. honestly, most people in the west will likely never have any vitamin deficiency besides maybe vitamin b12 or sunlight. we really don't have to worry about stuff like that anymore, rather we have to worry about taking too many supplements, which can be very dangerous.

Also, on an unrelated note, don't drink juice. Juice is not fruit, it's sugar water.

 

[Phrossack]

I have lots of nutritional scientists as close friends. they're aware of this problem. they also majorly disagree. According to nutritional science, there are no unhealthy foods. That is oxymoronic. A food, by definition, is something edible which prodives you with some kind of nutrients, right? A poison is not a food, neither is a rock. There is, however, an unhealthy diet. Honestly, I wouldn't give two hoots about "studies" coming out, and definitely look at their funding first and foremost. Fact is, most nutritionists aren't really obsessed with what is "healthy" or not, because that is not a helpful goal in science. "Healthiness" is hard to define and almost impossible to test for unless you invest millions into year long double blind studies. It's not their major concern.

As long as you eat a balanced diet of vegetables, fruits, starches, meat, fish and dairy you are absolutely going to be okay. Any honest nutritionist will tell you that. I think it's honestly mostly journalists, instagram models and nutritionists (these people are usually NOT nutritional scientists) who're going crazy about which foods are healthy and which are not

Well, my issues are compounded by my unwillingness to buy a variety of ingredients, foods that can't keep for a few days, and anything that takes much effort to cook. I should eat more vegetables but I dislike the taste of most, as well as how quickly they go bad and how much effort I have to exert to make anything with them, so fish and pasta it is, just about every night.

 

[Lexicus]

I just eat vegetables in salads, they're not hard to make, just grate some carrots and cheese with some leafy greens and some dressing and boom

 

[MaryKB]

Well, my issues are compounded by my unwillingness to buy a variety of ingredients, foods that can't keep for a few days, and anything that takes much effort to cook. I should eat more vegetables but I dislike the taste of most, as well as how quickly they go bad and how much effort I have to exert to make anything with them, so fish and pasta it is, just about every night.

You could try steamable frozen vegetable microwave bags. I used to be really big on "fresh veggies only!" until learning you get more nutrients from frozen, unless you're eating them picked from the farm the same day! I get these ones from Meijer where you just pop the whole bag in your microwave for 5 minutes, and they steam in-bag and come out tasting quite delicious. I get broccoli, carrots, asparagus, and mixed veggies this way and it makes a nice quick dinner that's really cheap and lasts in your freezer!

 

[Hygro]

You can even buy em that way. 3 bucks will serve you twice.

Edit talking about salads

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You could try steamable frozen vegetable microwave bags. I used to be really big on "fresh veggies only!" until learning you get more nutrients from frozen, unless you're eating them picked from the farm the same day! I get these ones from Meijer where you just pop the whole bag in your microwave for 5 minutes, and they steam in-bag and come out tasting quite delicious. I get broccoli, carrots, asparagus, and mixed veggies this way and it makes a nice quick dinner that's really cheap and lasts in your freezer!

that is really untrue as a general statement, sorry. not trying to be mean or anything, but no. just no. with some vegetables nutrients are preserved better if they're frozen isntantly. with some it is irrelevant. with some not freezing them is far superior. there is no rule of thumb.

also, "nutritional content" is really, really not what matters about vegetables. what matters is that vegetables aren't full of fat, sugar or carbohydrates. they have fiber. that's why they're good for us, not necessarily because of vitamins. that's just what advertising wants you to think. most humans in the west, generally speaking, will never ever have a vitamin deficiency in their life.

still good advice for someone who has problems with spoiling food!

 

[Lexicus]

For me it's a texture thing. I like steamed broccoli better than raw but pretty much every other vegetable I want crunchy and fresh.

 

[Hygro]

It does seem non-monetary compensation factors into the equation.

Being a waiter in Texas at $8 hour versus ridershare in the bay at after expenses $18 hour, rent free both cases (not the case rn but was for a minute) gives light to this. The benefits to my body at the wait job were real, the costs to my body driving are real. I couldn’t help but see a degree of equality even though the money in the end wins.

 

[Hygro]

that is really untrue as a general statement, sorry. not trying to be mean or anything, but no. just no. with some vegetables nutrients are preserved better if they're frozen isntantly. with some it is irrelevant. with some not freezing them is far superior. there is no rule of thumb.

also, "nutritional content" is really, really not what matters about vegetables. what matters is that vegetables aren't full of fat, sugar or carbohydrates. they have fiber. that's why they're good for us, not necessarily because of vitamins. that's just what advertising wants you to think. most humans in the west, generally speaking, will never ever have a vitamin deficiency in their life.

still good advice for someone who has problems with spoiling food!

Vegetables are healthy for the nutrients don’t kid yourself.

 

[MaryKB]

that is really untrue as a general statement, sorry. not trying to be mean or anything, but no. just no. with some vegetables nutrients are preserved better if they're frozen isntantly. with some it is irrelevant. with some not freezing them is far superior. there is no rule of thumb.

also, "nutritional content" is really, really not what matters about vegetables. what matters is that vegetables aren't full of fat, sugar or carbohydrates. they have fiber. that's why they're good for us, not necessarily because of vitamins. that's just what advertising wants you to think. most humans in the west, generally speaking, will never ever have a vitamin deficiency in their life.

still good advice for someone who has problems with spoiling food!

Hmm, interesting ... I'm not completely sure, but I haven't thought of it this way before. I think you make a lot of sense. But I think more it's about my old bias thinking "fresh is always better" and learning my preconceptions weren't true, let me give frozen vegetables a chance and not be so "snobby" about it, you know what I mean? I think part of me's still fighting my old way of thinking and feeling a need to justify it!

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I mean in many cases frozen vegetables do have higher nutrient cases than one's laying around the supermarket for days, so you are not wrong

Vegetables are healthy for the nutrients don’t kid yourself.

if you count fiber then yes, they're healthy precisely because of that. most people do not though, most people only link vitamins and other micronutrients like iron and calcium to the word "nutrient".

they're not healthy because of vitamins though, because as I stated multiple times, we don't need "more vitamins" in order to be "more healthy". there is a certain level you can reach, after which all vitamin intake becomes either useless or dangerous. this is a fact. you don't get super eyesight if you eat 50 carrots a day, you get orange skin.

vegetables, for a western diet, are healthy because they're not full of sugar, fat, or carbohydrates. they're healthy because the alternatives are not.

example: someone who has a very calory-restrictive diet, like someone from sub-saharan Africa a few decades ago, really wouldn't be helped if you gave him a salad, or spinach, or peas. he needs a big mac. he needs starches, fats and sugars.

"healthy" or "unhealthy" never exists in a vacuum. that is why I said "there are no unhealthy foods". it's all relative to what your current diet is.

if your diet is lacking fiber and vitamins, veges are healthy. if your diet is raw-vegan, vegetables can literally kill you, and you need either meat, fish, or supplements.

 

[MaryKB]

My understanding is the only thing you can't get from non-meat that you get from meat is B-12, because we clean our plants too well these days? You can get good fats from lots of plants, and proteins, etc.

 

[jarred!]

B12 is only produced by bacteria and archaea. It's in meat because the animal you are consuming has B12 stored in their muscles, you eat the muscle and absorb the vitamin.
Some bacteria in human colons produce it as well, but nutrients aren't absorbed by the colon, so it is excreted instead. Rabbits will consume their poop to for this reason (they will excrete soft pellets which they will eat again, then excrete that as a hard pellet which is just waste).

 

[BenitoChavez]

also, "nutritional content" is really, really not what matters about vegetables. what matters is that vegetables aren't full of fat, sugar or carbohydrates. they have fiber. that's why they're good for us, not necessarily because of vitamins. that's just what advertising wants you to think. most humans in the west, generally speaking, will never ever have a vitamin deficiency in their life.

if you count fiber then yes, they're healthy precisely because of that. most people do not though, most people only link vitamins and other micronutrients like iron and calcium to the word "nutrient".

they're not healthy because of vitamins though, because as I stated multiple times, we don't need "more vitamins" in order to be "more healthy". there is a certain level you can reach, after which all vitamin intake becomes either useless or dangerous. this is a fact. you don't get super eyesight if you eat 50 carrots a day, you get orange skin.

Micronutrient deficiencies are a thing, even in western countries (see below). A lot of micronutrients come from vegetables. So yeah, vegetables are an important part of a diet beyond just fiber. If everyone got their fiber from other means, like metamucil, there would be huge health issues.

https://www.ewg.org/research/how-much-is-too-much/appendix-b-vitamin-and-mineral-deficiencies-us

 

[civvver]

My understanding is the only thing you can't get from non-meat that you get from meat is B-12, because we clean our plants too well these days? You can get good fats from lots of plants, and proteins, etc.

Plants do not contain complete proteins, which is not an issue if you eat a balanced diet, but if you eat like only beans it becomes an issue. That's why they always say people needs beans and rice to live.

Lots of weird info in this thread though- beer doesn't give you belly fat. You can't control where your body deposits fat. It's just called a beer belly cus of sterotypes, most men gain weight around their belly, and the sterotype of men drinking beer and gaining weight. Really it's all just calories. You could have a belly and never touch beer and just eat too many chips or be an alcoholic and thin (which many are cus they don't eat cus they feel the effects of alcohol more on an empty stomach).

And alcohol doesn't magically make you gain more weight than equivalent calories of food, it's just that alcohol isn't very filling. It's liquid and basically metabolized as sugar even though it's not a carb. It makes you crave food usually.

Even if genetics plays a part in weight gain or loss, it's so small you can overcome it with diet. Most people just don't realize what they consume. And it's habits. Overweight people have the habits of eating more and possibly moving less. It's very hard to reprogram your habits. You're right, there are no evil foods, sugar can be fine in some situations even, it's all what's good for you and your overall diet and situation. Just like free range grass fed organic beef might be the very healthiest beef option, it can be prohibitively expensive. Or maybe pomegrantes are wonderful but you just dislike them. Then don't eat them! Plenty of other foods to choose from.

Weight gain is mostly calories in, calories out, but hunger is not at all. Which is another reason you need a good diet to lose weight. You can lose weight on cookies but you will hate your life eating two cookies a day. Or you could eat like a pound of vegetables and half a pound of lean meats among other things and feel full.

I'm glad I'm not the only one alcohol derails. I had to give up my evening drink just cus when you're on a 500 calorie deficit and a beer is 150, that's a lot and really stunts progress. I find light beer really has the most bang per buck if I'm having a few. I mean all these people flocking to trulys and hard seltzers, they have the same calories and abv as a miller lite and taste worse. Or you could drink something really high in alcohol content and you'll be buzzed right away and just quit after that! Like one belgian tripel at 10% abv, then go to bed lol. It has double the calories of a light beer but you don't need 6 of them to feel it.