2 PAGES
1 | 2
previous topic · next topic
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:12
I'd like for people to tell me which plan you think is healthier based on nutritional stats... or do you think these two look the same?

One is organic, one is not. Neither use supplements.

Plan 1:
1226kcal
Carbs: 161.77g, Protein: 53.11g, Fat: 40.72g

Plan 2:
1342kcal
Carbs: 182.20g, Protein: 77.69g, Fat: 38.44g

I'd appreciate if the person I got these stats off of not respond or share which one is theirs versus the other. Smile I'd like to see what people think with nothing to influence them other than the nutritional stats.
Natural.Lift...

Joined: Jul 10
Posts: 139

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:13
You can hardly tell healthy food from only macronutrients. This thread has no point and you know it.
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:15
Seriously? A protein is a protein. A carb is a carb. There is no difference in the end or there would be issues with vegetarian versus carnivore as well.
Natural.Lift...

Joined: Jul 10
Posts: 139

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:18
Plan 1 is healthier then, because Plan 2 is obviously 3 scoops of whey protein and six twinkies.
Lee2010

Joined: Mar 10
Posts: 200

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:43
I really wouldn't care, because they're both under 1400 calories.
Lee2010

Joined: Mar 10
Posts: 200

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:43
Actually, if you said what foods made up each plans, then I would probably care, but you haven't.
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 20:48
They both contain fresh vegetables, dairy and fruit. The only difference is one uses packaged foods as about 50% of their diet and the other uses all natural home cooked ones. The question isn't about personal preferences though... it's about which one is really better for you when you break it down into what the body will use and need.
Lee2010

Joined: Mar 10
Posts: 200

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 21:03
Surely (personal preferences aside) our bodies would prefer to have foods as natural as possible? I would have thought that the less processed a food is, the better for you it would be. More nutrients retained, more vitamins retained, less work for the body to do filtering out the unnecessary (but not necessarily BAD) preservatives, etc. That's just my rather uneducated assumption though.
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 22:01
Well after a complete physical and blood work ups in August I can say that my body is 100% healthy and the only deficiency I had was b12... and that is not caused by immediate changes to diet since the body is supposed to store 1 years worth in it naturally. All other vitamins were at excellent levels and I have excellent cholesterol and also perfect blood pressure. The food in question doesn't have chemical preservatives in it for the most part. It's all soft canned or dehydrated.
k8yk

Joined: Jan 09
Posts: 4,546

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 22:32
I pretty much ignore the macronutrients, aside from making an attempt to get an adequate amount of protein with each meal, since I am vegetarian and that only happens with effort. (I am not vegetarian for health reasons)

I don't think a fat is a fat is a fat. An avocado and a stick of butter aren't the same thing. I don't think a carb is a carb. Your body handles fructose differently from glucose and fiber differently still. I don't think a protein is a protein. The amino acid chain that makes up the protein in meat is different than the one in beans or the one in nuts.

I believe the body has evolved over millions of years to digest food- like living things that grow, plants and animals. Can you be healthy eating food out of cans and boxes? Sure! My grandma was healthy and she smoked and drank. Aspartame doesn't cause cancer- but it is a contributing factor.

To me there are deeper reasons to care about what's in your food and where it came from than just nutrition. Nutrition is an incomplete science. One needs only to look to the superiority of breast milk to formula to see this. They simply haven't figured it all out yet. And my thought process is that by eating the food that nature provided in a wide variety, unaltered chemically, I am more likely to get the benefits that nutrition science has yet to find.

Not to mention the simple fact that fresh food always tastes better, gets you on your feet (burning more calories) to cook it, gets you involved and present in all you consume. It's an aesthetic, pleasurable, social experience as well as fuel.

So I'll go with the freshest, closest to nature food you can get as the healthiest. The 100 calorie difference is inconsequential.
My blog, This is not a Diet:
http://notsobigk.wordpress.com
Follow me on Facebook for tips, recipes, advice, exercise ideas and more:
http://www.facebook.com/notadiet
Oddity

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 280

      quote  
Posted: 25 Oct 2010, 23:22
Well, the Inuit think if you don't drink seal blood and lots of raw meat you are going to freeze. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet They may have a point, but I think I'll be OK anyhow this winter.

People survive on wide varieties of different diets the world over. Having a few staple foods is more common than a supermarket with an embarrassment of non seasonal choices. Many of those traditional diets rely on preserved foods via one method or another. So, while having a variety of fresh natural foods may be arguably best, people reach healthy old ages with all sorts of odd diets that may be imperfect, but still sufficient for health.

Convenience is a huge factor in making a diet "livable", and if it ain't livable it's not happening for a lot of folks.

That said, my folks did nutrasystems decades ago and the food is not for me.
runnette

Joined: Jul 10
Posts: 65

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 00:16
I don't think one is healthier than the other, but based on *just* these numbers and what you said they contain (fresh vegetables, dairy, fruit), I would say that neither has enough protein in it ... but that's just based on the plan I am following personally.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Live a life less ordinary; live a live extraordinary. - Carbon Leaf
Lee2010

Joined: Mar 10
Posts: 200

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 01:49
I don't see the point in coming on here to get all defensive about your diet, sherilyn70. What are you trying to achieve? Maybe if you were a salesperson for the Nutrisystem (or whatever it's called) I could understand it, but you're not (as far as I know?). So do your diet, enjoy that it works for you, and stop caring so much about what other people think.
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 04:56
No, the point is people are judging a diet based on preconception and a name. If someone said they ate Lean Cuisines instead of Nutrisystem it wouldn't get the same reaction. They don't even know how the diet works. Over the last few days I've heard it's a fad diet, it's not plausible, you can't do it long term, it's not healthy.... etc. So I'm just asking people to figure out based on the two plans, which one is the unhealthy non managable plan. That's all. Smile

When you break it all down they are about the same. The fats are healthy ones, the carbs are not from processed sugars and are only low glycemic ones from fruits, veggies and whole grains.

The point of this is that no one can tell me which is which can they when they have no label on them. so if you can't tell the difference then whey would you continue to bad mouth it?

I don't care what the others think about it (common misconception people have when a point is debated). What I do care is about ignorance. People say things that are harmful and make blanket statements and claims when they know nothing about what they're talking about that's when I have a problem. People need to stop and think about things from a logical point of view and not an emtional one.

Quote:
So I'll go with the freshest, closest to nature food you can get as the healthiest. The 100 calorie difference is inconsequential.

That's an interesting statement... are you assuming the higher calorie one is the organic one?
k8yk

Joined: Jan 09
Posts: 4,546

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 08:38
No. I'm saying 100 calories either way is inconsequential. The nutritional information provided doesn't tell the whole story. Food is more than a sum of its (known) parts. Take beta carotene, for example. Remember when it was the big thing? Well it turned out that extracting it and injecting it into other foods negated the benefits. There is more to the carrot than we understand at this time.
My blog, This is not a Diet:
http://notsobigk.wordpress.com
Follow me on Facebook for tips, recipes, advice, exercise ideas and more:
http://www.facebook.com/notadiet
k8yk

Joined: Jan 09
Posts: 4,546

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 10:07
BTW, I think everyone should do the best they can. You can lose weight eating packaged food and fast food and empty calories too, as long as you mind the calories. I lost about 50 pounds before I gave a thought to anything other than total calories. And I didn't go "off the deep end" (as my bf says) until I read In Defense of Food. This works for me and makes me happy and I'm pretty convinced it's the healthiest way to eat (cooking the great majority of foods from scratch and avoiding foods with long lists of unpronounceable ingredients.) But if it isn't something you want to do, then you shouldn't do it! If Nutrisystem makes you happy and works for you and you're losing weight and loving it that is fantastic.

But I really don't think the argument can be made that it's healthier than eating fresh real food. Or that it tastes as good. Can you lose weight on it? Absolutely. I have a buddy who lost weight eating fast food every day. If it works for you, that's great. But if it doesn't work for somebody else, and they think the food is gross or caused them to have some unpleasant side effects, their opinion is just as valid and shouldn't be dismissed just because you have had a different experience.
My blog, This is not a Diet:
http://notsobigk.wordpress.com
Follow me on Facebook for tips, recipes, advice, exercise ideas and more:
http://www.facebook.com/notadiet
Hoser

Joined: Jul 10
Posts: 2,052

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 11:59
Quote:
No, the point is people are judging a diet based on preconception and a name.


Actually, I was judging the diet based on a perusal of their website and a careful reading of the ingredients list for a couple dozen of their products.

Quote:
The fats are healthy ones, the carbs are not from processed sugars and are only low glycemic ones from fruits, veggies and whole grains.


I just went to their site and took the first breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack on the basic plan as food samples. Breakfast (apple cinnamon oatmeal) contains sugar and dextrose. Lunch (beans & ham soup) contains sugar. Dinner (BBQ sauce over beef, beans, and rice) contains brown sugar and splenda. Dessert (almond biscotti) contains sugar and brown sugar. The whole thing adds up to 27 grams of sugar, most of which appears to be refined sugars.

Now, just for fun, I'll pick my personal choices for a day. Double chocolate muffin, 15g of sugar and 270mg of sodium. Chicken and pasta in cacciatore sauce, 7g of sugar and 590mg of sodium. Stroganoff sauce with beef and noodles for 5g of sugar and 610mg of sodium. Fudge brownie for 9g of sugar and 300mg of sodium. That's 36g of sugar and 1770mg of sodium.

Pretty much every food that I looked at contained refined sugar of some sort or another.

Now, frankly, I eat refined sugar as part of my diet. I do it deliberately and with forethought. In fact, I'm doing this as I write this-- my breakfast is oatmeal with a teaspoon of sugar and a tablespoon of heavy cream. The biggest difference between your diet and mine is that most of my food comes straight from plants and animals and doesn't go through a factory or chemical processing on their way to my kitchen.

I'm not saying that Nutrisystem is bad. If it works for you, great. It just seems to be pretty much the same processed, prepared foods as much of the current western diet, only portion-controlled and overpriced. It also doesn't seem to teach you the skills necessary to cook for yourself and make healthy food choices once you're done with the plan.
hottagain

Joined: Mar 10
Posts: 177

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 12:09
Who cares? If it works for you great, but you are not going to change the minds of people that enjoy cooking and like knowing what is going into their body because they bought it and didn't read an ingredient list. I like picking out the veggies and fruits and meats and everything that go into my meals and no one will convince me that massive meals that are made in a factory are better. Go for what you want no one is trying to change your ideas, there is no reason to be so defensive.
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 13:23
Hoser wrote:
I'm not saying that Nutrisystem is bad. If it works for you, great. It just seems to be pretty much the same processed, prepared foods as much of the current western diet, only portion-controlled and overpriced. It also doesn't seem to teach you the skills necessary to cook for yourself and make healthy food choices once you're done with the plan.


No, you're not one of the ones that have said that. It was other people. I never thought you were one of them. Smile

As for providing skills, they actually do that once you have signed up. I've mentioned before that there are guidelines for eating on your own. They even sell a cookbook.

Overpriced is only based on what you were spending previously... at $10 a day for the food and then $5 more in fresh groceries it seems pretty reasonable to me. That's less than what I was spending before I joined. $5 at McDonalds for breakfast, $10 for lunch, then I still needed to buy something for dinner. I've never been a frugal shopper when it comes to groceries and often bought pre-prepped or premade items. I don't have access to fresh farm markets or specialty stores like many people do... Whole Foods is the closest we get.
sherilyn70

Joined: May 10
Posts: 548

      quote  
Posted: 26 Oct 2010, 13:29
hottagain wrote:
Go for what you want no one is trying to change your ideas, there is no reason to be so defensive.


I think you're mistaking a debate with being defensive. The point was to educate. Many false claims were made. I believe in educating yourself first if you're going to make statements about something. I guess people don't actually want to know facts though. What would be the fun in that? Then they wouldn't be able to call things names.



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

A question on carbs
Oh my...how I would LOVE to have 60 carbs per day! I keep it under 20 and truly shoot for 15 or less. Though I have lost 34 pounds in less than 3 months, that is only because my carbs are SO LOW. I ...
by Patti No Cake on 17 Sep 14 10:21 PM
Contrary to popular belief the way to lose weight is not by Starving yourself or eliminating
I think most people here think I'm crazy because I'm always telling people to consider eating more ;-) To many people take the limbo approach to calories - "How low can you go?" - and ...
by gnat824 on 17 Sep 14 05:56 PM
Eliminating Sugar - Where do you draw the line?
I cut out fizzy drink and that was a big start to my weight loss. I didn't drink a lot of fizzy, but dropping that and the small amount of alcohol I was drinking has made a difference. I haven't ...
by Ibizan Lover on 17 Sep 14 05:51 PM
Realizing how so very important...
I STILL have the other half of my breakfast to snack on for dinner. :)
by billtech66 on 17 Sep 14 04:43 PM
Has anyone tried Weight Watchers online program?
I believe they often have join for the first month free deals on... maybe see if they do and give it a go,
by mummydee on 17 Sep 14 03:05 PM

Member Tip

average member ranking
by member jammers
don't over exercise, you'll be too hungry to avoid cheating. i do 1 hour each day, 45 mins elliptical and 15 weights/crunches.
08 Aug 09 for diet NutriSystem