The Iron Will and Positivity Thread

[Phrossack]

So, I haven't bothered to work out since early this month. And I haven't bothered jogging with the pup.

But today I arose late and skipped breakfast. Combined with my modest lunch, and a new rule that I am no longer to stock any more alcohol or dessert unless I have company, and I stayed right around 1000 calories. Not stocking dessert anymore is a big deal for me. My whole life I've had multiple servings of chocolate every day. It could be margin of error / natural fluctuation, but I seem to have lost a few pounds.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I set a goal about a month back of bicycling to the beach by the end of the summer but I've missed so many practice weekends that I don't think it'll happen. The sad thing is that I don't actually miss the practice - I still ride my bike a lot - just when I head out I tend to immediately forget my goal and just putz around the local pokestops instead of heading in one direction.

 

[civvver]

fiber and vitamins are nice, but not the biggest advantage of whole grains. its how the energy is deposited in your body. a good analogy would be fruit and juice. with fruits, the sugars are stored in fiber&water. they release slowly and don't spike your blood sugar or leave you hungry. with juice they release instantly, so juice from a hunger pov is just as bad as coca cola.

as for whole grains, it's pretty simple. in nutritional science they're divided between complex (e.g whole grains) and simple carbohydrates (e.g wheat flour), which in the end is the result of chemical composition. complex carbs have very long chains where the sugar is bound and therefore take much longer for the body to break down. so eating complex carbs doesn't spike your blood sugar as much. they release their energy very slowly, meaning you will be satured with energy for a longer time, compared to simple carbs. I do think that the overwhelming amount of simple carbohydrates in western diets is one of the biggest factors for obesity.

I don't get if you are answering my question indirectly or not. Are whole grains really a necessity in one's diet for general health? I'm not talking about optimum athletic performance or something, where the energy benefit would be useful. I mean for a regular person who wants to eat healthy and be in shape. I don't think they are. I think if you eat a lot of vegetables and proteins, either dairy or meat or vegetable protein, grains aren't necessary.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

well, sorry but that's a pretty loaded question. no single food is ever a "requirement" in order to be "healthy", that's just a bad way of looking at it. yes, you can definitely live your entire life never eating a single "whole grain" and be perfectly healthy. if that's what you wanted to hear, there you go.

but what I told you is that "whole grains" contain many complex carbohydrates, moreso than virtually any other food group, and that complex carbohydrates have many health advantages. you don't need to eat them, feel free not to. and no, energy is not simply about "athletic performance", everything we do takes energy. sitting at a desk does. sweating does, digesting does. thinking needs lots and lots of energy. more than people think. in order to think effectively you need to keep your body both energized and hydrated. so if you want to feel well, it's probably a good idea to eat some complex carbs, especially for breakfast. they'll keep you supplied for hours. doesn't mean you need to eat whole grains.

complex carbs btw are not merely grains. peas, lentils, chickpeas, sweet potatoes, squash, regualr potatoes, all kinds of beans, brown rice.. all of those contain varying degrees of complex carbs, and I'm sure you already eat many of those foods. If I remember correctly you are, like me, a big fan of rice and beans.

 

[civvver]

yeah well it just irks me when world health organization comes out with guidelines and says dietary wise the US is at risk cus we underconsume whole grains. I can't find the chart now but I think it was the second most risky issue for the us after over consumption of sodium

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I wouldn't trust the WHO too much personally, they shouldn't be the leading authority on nutritional science nor dietary advice.

The World Health Organization sub-department, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has been criticized for the way it analyses the tendency of certain substances and activities to cause cancer and for having a politically motivated bias when it selects studies for its analysis. Ed Yong, a British science journalist, has criticized the agency and its "confusing" category system for misleading the public.[138] Marcel Kuntz, a French director of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, criticized the agency for its classification of potentially carcinogenic substances. He claimed that this classification did not take into account the extent of exposure: for example, red meat is qualified as probably carcinogenic, but the quantity of consumed red meat at which it could become dangerous is not specified.[139]

 

[Ferocitus]

sorry, should have specified I was talking about first world countries when I said "the west", so not the US

but in all seriousness, thanks for this post. I was unaware that vitamin deficiencies were a thing in the US. it does make sense though, if you have a diet consisting of mostly processed foods

For the last few years, as a "hobby" project, I've been collecting material on selenium and iodine deficiencies. I'm angling to combine it with some very nice recent work that collated data on elevated levels of lead from over 60 countries (IIRC) .
These simple deficiencies can have enormous effects on populations you wouldn't suspect.
For example, iodine deficiency (without accounting for selenium and lead) was estimated (in 2008) to add about 1 billion Euros per year to health care costs in Germany.

 

[Narz]

I have personally done some fasting recently and liked it very much. Though almost all of my nutritional science friends aren't a big fan. They don't believe in detoxing (which I agree), and think fasting is potentially dangerous (which I also agree) and that it's worse of a weight loss tool than traditional calorie reduction (this debate has yet to be resolved).

also fasting and its effects on chronic disease and cancer have been researched very little, but seem incredibly promising. personally I like intermittent fasting or week long water fasts.

Your friends are wrong, fasting is better than dieting.

Fasting really isn't dangerous unless you're doing it wrong. Dieting is dangerous.

 

[Narz]

On the subject of positivity (I'm gonna treat this as a random raves thread for mental & physical health related matters), I've been meditating 4-days in a row now (10 min 1x per day) after a nearly 6-month lapse. I've been very consistent at the gym, really enjoying myself even when I'm not enjoying myself (if that makes sense) and consistent with yoga. On the negative end of the spectrum I'm out of work and rather discouraged about it (in Florida summer is the slow season but I could still be trying much harder to find work) and pretty lonely. I have a faraway ladyfriend who's texting my everyday but she's not here with me now which is what I need, also I'm not sure how I really feel about it since we spent all of two days together and frankly I'm not sure I'm cut out for thoroughly exclusive relationships. Some other negative things happening regarding my ex ignoring court orders that I won't get into. Finally, besides fitness I feel a bit lost as to what I should be doing with my life & thus I'm wasting boatloads of time online thruout the day.

But overall, the lesson is that life & self-assessment doesn't have to be all or nothing. A person could be totally f-ing up in certain areas & very consistent, making steady progress in others and it's good to give yourself props for what you're doing right while not shying away from what you're doing wrong.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't know if it's something to post here, but this short story is very relevant to the topic and did me personally a lot of good. I'm not saying that the program it describes should be followed (though I'm not entirely against it), but it shows a much better way of thinking about addiction and willpower.

 

[Phrossack]

Every time I read this thread or any findings on nutrition and diet, I end up a lot more confused than I was before. I must conclude that everything is simultaneously the next superfood and utterly unhealthy to eat, and that I will always have some nutrient deficiency.

Seriously, it seems like all info on nutrition contradicts all other info, and I have no way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Whole grains are both healthy and are dangerous carbohydrates. Fish is nutritious and full of toxins. Vegetables are both crucial and unnecessary. And that's without even touching the issues of ethics and environmentalism. I suppose my only option is to accept a short and unhealthy life. Really, all I want is to eat the same meals almost every day that are nutritious, low calorie, and extremely easy to prepare.

Cue a dozen people chiming in to say that their diet is the one nutritious one, unlike all the others.

 

[Mouthwash]

Cut the flavor and combinations out (e.g. only eat totally plain meat, or a single type of veggie, by itself - I'd recommend eating as much as you want of one, then moving on to the other). After that, your cravings should be pretty well aligned with your needs.

Or don't, because certain people with an emotional investment in food think this is a dumb 'paleo' idea.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Cue a dozen people chiming in to say that their diet is the one nutritious one, unlike all the others.

Seriously, it seems like all info on nutrition contradicts all other info, and I have no way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Whole grains are both healthy and are dangerous carbohydrates. Fish is nutritious and full of toxins. Vegetables are both crucial and unnecessary. And that's without even touching the issues of ethics and environmentalism. I suppose my only option is to accept a short and unhealthy life. Really, all I want is to eat the same meals almost every day that are nutritious, low calorie, and extremely easy to prepare.

Yeah, nutrition is a complicated thing and it's easy to get lost in the details. Figuring out if x amount of y food z times a week is good for you is a hopeless endeavor.

But that doesn't mean broad principles about what is healthy can't be made. I like to keep it simple. Look at ingredient labels. If an ingredient doesn't directly come from a plant or animal, don't eat it too much. Eat mostly plants. Don't eat too much.

 

[Synobun]

Every time I read this thread or any findings on nutrition and diet, I end up a lot more confused than I was before. I must conclude that everything is simultaneously the next superfood and utterly unhealthy to eat, and that I will always have some nutrient deficiency.

Seriously, it seems like all info on nutrition contradicts all other info, and I have no way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Whole grains are both healthy and are dangerous carbohydrates. Fish is nutritious and full of toxins. Vegetables are both crucial and unnecessary. And that's without even touching the issues of ethics and environmentalism. I suppose my only option is to accept a short and unhealthy life. Really, all I want is to eat the same meals almost every day that are nutritious, low calorie, and extremely easy to prepare.

Cue a dozen people chiming in to say that their diet is the one nutritious one, unlike all the others.

Nutrition uses empirical measurements but needs to be applied to subjective bodies. Even the baseline average can have significant variations between individuals. This isn't taking lobbying into account either.

Heavily controlled diets aren't that great for normal people because it's a huge imposition and the positives are temporary. Ratios are difficult to perfect, and you'll naturally go through cycles where you need a certain nutrient less or more than usual.

If you're figuring out a daily diet, you're better off going with what you like best and what makes you feel best. For some that's a lot of vegetables. For others that can be a lot of meat. So long as you're getting your minimums in the rest of your nutrient profile, you have a lot of leeway in what you get your calories from.

If you're not motivated by taste or satiety at all (I'm envious of you if this is the case), nutrient bricks and shakes are probably your easiest solution. But this can be expensive and a real downer on social activities, depending on how your digestive system acclimates.

 

[Mouthwash]

If you're not motivated by taste or satiety at all (I'm envious of you if this is the case), nutrient bricks and shakes are probably your easiest solution. But this can be expensive and a real downer on social activities, depending on how your digestive system acclimates.

There is no human being (aside from perhaps ones with bizarre conditions) who isn't motivated by taste or satiety. Also, I was not aware that we had nutrient bricks and shakes in the ancestral environment.

 

[Lexicus]

There is no human being (aside from perhaps ones with bizarre conditions) who isn't motivated by taste or satiety. Also, I was not aware that we had nutrient bricks and shakes in the ancestral environment.

We didn't have smallpox inoculations in the ancestral environment either. You know, since we're apparently pointing out irrelevant things.

 

[Phrossack]

Nutrition uses empirical measurements but needs to be applied to subjective bodies. Even the baseline average can have significant variations between individuals. This isn't taking lobbying into account either.

Heavily controlled diets aren't that great for normal people because it's a huge imposition and the positives are temporary. Ratios are difficult to perfect, and you'll naturally go through cycles where you need a certain nutrient less or more than usual.

If you're figuring out a daily diet, you're better off going with what you like best and what makes you feel best. For some that's a lot of vegetables. For others that can be a lot of meat. So long as you're getting your minimums in the rest of your nutrient profile, you have a lot of leeway in what you get your calories from.

If you're not motivated by taste or satiety at all (I'm envious of you if this is the case), nutrient bricks and shakes are probably your easiest solution. But this can be expensive and a real downer on social activities, depending on how your digestive system acclimates.

See, I have no clue whether I'm getting my nutrients, or how my food makes me feel beyond taste. Taste isn't too important to me, but it's a factor. I could try bags of frozen vegetables since I can't be bothered to make fresh ones before they go bad. Unfortunately I don't know how to make proper rice - mine is always pretty bad. So it's cereal, PBJs, and pasta with fish for me.

 

[Mouthwash]

We didn't have smallpox inoculations in the ancestral environment either. You know, since we're apparently pointing out irrelevant things.

I feel like we've been over this before.

 

[Synobun]

See, I have no clue whether I'm getting my nutrients, or how my food makes me feel beyond taste. Taste isn't too important to me, but it's a factor. I could try bags of frozen vegetables since I can't be bothered to make fresh ones before they go bad. Unfortunately I don't know how to make proper rice - mine is always pretty bad. So it's cereal, PBJs, and pasta with fish for me.

I'm the same with rice. I can't seem to make a decent pot to save my life even if I follow recipes to the letter.

Getting a rice cooker helped a lot. And you can get one that's multi-functional too so you can steam veggies at the same time.

Really, if you're willing to learn how to use it, an Instant Pot might be a good fit for you. It takes a lot of stress out of cooking and combines a bunch of single-function appliances together.

Nutrient-wise, it's tricky. There are ways to pinpoint what you need more of and what you need less of, but they require a lot of tracking and effort. It can easily take a year or longer to figure it out. It's a lot of trial and error, and for most people the effort required is simply not worth it since your diet and health will never be so at odds for it to truly matter (unless you eat terribly, of course).

Pasta and fish is good. How do you handle vegetables? Can you add a decent amount without running into any big issues? That could be a useful first step in seeing if your body feels any different after at least 2-3 weeks of incorporating something new. It's possible that you won't feel any different, though, or that you'll feel worse.

Going in for blood work can tell you right away if you have any serious deficiencies. But I don't know how much that would cost you in the land of the free.

 

[Farm Boy]

I suck at making rice too. And I dislike cooking. Which is actually problematic, since reducing preparation increases processing and cost and yadda yadda. But w/e. Overthinking. Vegetables are good in a general sense. Canned is good for you, steamed is good for you, fresh is good for you. You're eating a vegetable, it's generally good for you compared to alternatives, and they fill you up and have nutrient things. Buy whatever you'll eat. If the little frozen steamer bags do it at your price point and you'll eat them, they're great. Fruit is good for you. Eat the fruit, skip the juice. Eat it canned or fresh or frozen, doesn't matter. Some meat and cheese is good for you. Have some, try to increase the percentage of fruit and vegetables unless you're trying to gain weight. Easier said than done. I'm fat. You're going to eat some things that are made out of grass. Whether it is wheat or rice or corn or whatever. Starches are stable calories. They'll do the filling. Try to eat them last to top off being full, maybe. But that's just a suggestion, doesn't really matter. Alcohol has a ton of calories.

Cereals are fine, try to reduce sugar. PBJs are fine, pasta is fine, fish is fine. A agree. Working in the fruit and veg is hard, it works tho.