Foods to stop hunger - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-02-2014, 01:54 AM
Newbie
 
ilovemybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 19

So at the moment I have a big problem with hunger. Im hungry all the time.All my doctors will say is its part of eating disorder recover. But iv gained so much weight in recovery im now over weight and id like to be well normal. 

 

Im trying to make my meals as filling as possable but its not working. If I write down an average list of meals for me can anyone advise on how to make them more filling?

 

Breakfast: oatmeal

 

Lunch, quorn chicken and lettice sandwich, 

 

dinner: bean burger, broccoli and rice

 

Even after finishing my meal im still starving so want to eat more. which leads to continous snack eating :(

ilovemybunny is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 02-02-2014, 03:19 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Lentil City, UK
Posts: 2,535

I'm not seeing a lot of fruit and veg there.  I would add some more veggies to your main meal for starters. 

 

*  Do you use wholegrain bread?  That helps to keep you feeling fuller for longer.

*  Have a side salad with your sandwich 

*  Have an apple or banana after your sandwich or as healthy snacks during the day.  

*  You could also add some berries to your oatmeal.  

*  Make a low calorie vegetable soup using lentils etc and store/freeze it in mug-sized portion for a healthy, filling snack.

*  Snack on raw veggies during the day - because they are raw they will take longer to be digested so you should feel more full. It's difficult to 'overdose' on raw veg and it's low calorie so not a problem if you go on a binge.  I prefer raw broccoli, carrots and cabbage to the cooked version anyway.

 

Are you actually overweight or do you just feel overweight because of your ED?  I know that I feel good at a certain weight and if I'm a few pounds over it doesn't feel "right", however, I am still well within the guidelines for my height and age. 

 

Are you doing a lot of exercise?  Burning off calories is obviously going to make you feel more hungry so that could be having an effect.

60225 is offline  
#3 Old 02-18-2014, 03:29 AM
Beginner
 
RedPill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 196

Chug some water. Whenever I'm hungry I have a gulp or two of water and it stops me from snacking.

RedPill is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 02-18-2014, 07:46 AM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998

Make sure the bread is whole grain.

 

Get rid of the rice.  White and brown rice both are kind of junk food.

 

Black rice, or wild rice are both good.

Potatoes are also OK.

 

Add in raw carrots to eat, as many as you want, for snacking.

 

 

I'd also get rid of the quorn.  Replace it with lentils, split peas, etc.  You can make a thick soup, and eat it with toast.  Or make Hummus (lite on the tahini) for the sandwich.

 

Also, adding more mixed veggies into a soup is a good idea.

 

 

Avoid sweet fruits- choose tomatoes, squash, etc.

pandiculationco is offline  
#5 Old 02-18-2014, 09:23 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Rice is not a junk food! :0
Wendaline likes this.
LedBoots is offline  
#6 Old 02-18-2014, 09:32 AM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Rice is not a junk food! :0

 

Anything that you have to eat more than 2,000 calories of in a day to avoid severe malnutrition due to deficiency in protein is a junk food unless it has major redeeming qualities.

 

Rice is marginally superior to a bowl of marshmallows.  And mostly just because it won't rot your teeth as fast ;)

 

That said, I do eat rice some times.  Among other junk food.

pandiculationco is offline  
#7 Old 02-18-2014, 12:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Anything that you have to eat more than 2,000 calories of in a day to avoid severe malnutrition due to deficiency in protein is a junk food unless it has major redeeming qualities.
This makes little sense....under this definition most whole plant foods would be "junk food". Many nuts (e.g., walnuts), the vast majority of fruits, many whole grains, some potatoes etc would be "junk food". Indeed, if you take the lower quality of plant protein into consideration the vast majority of common plant foods can not meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories. You can't judge the healthfulness of a food by how well it can alone meet human protein needs at 2,000 calories.

Suggesting that rice is only marginally better than Marshmallows is outlandish.......rice isn't the most nutritious food but standard brown rice contains numerous nutrients, has a reasonable amount of protein, etc.

Common brown rice has moderate calorie density, has moderate protein and provides a good deal of nutrients. Far removed from a junk food like Marshmallows which is calorie dense, has no protein and contains little to no nutrients.
logic is offline  
#8 Old 02-18-2014, 01:10 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


This makes little sense....under this definition most whole plant foods would be "junk food". Many nuts (e.g., walnuts), the vast majority of fruits, many whole grains, some potatoes etc would be "junk food". Indeed, if you take the lower quality of plant protein into consideration the vast majority of common plant foods can not meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories. You can't judge the healthfulness of a food by how well it can alone meet human protein needs at 2,000 calories.

 

Walnuts come in at around 2,000 calories for daily protein requirement, despite fat content.  Whether it comes in above or below depends on the variety.

Even if they didn't, the essential fatty acids (particularly the omega 3) are a major redeeming quality.

 

You should check some common healthy foods- it's rare to find one that doesn't fulfill protein needs (by the gram) at under 2,000 calories.

I assume people eat a mixed diet, so I don't consider incomplete proteins as deficient in this sense (unless they're critically incomplete, like gelatin).

 

Quote:

Suggesting that rice is only marginally better than Marshmallows is outlandish.......rice isn't the most nutritious food but standard brown rice contains numerous nutrients, has a reasonable amount of protein, etc.

 

Not a very reasonable amount.  Brown is slightly better than white, but only slightly.  Let's imagine there's a brown marshmallow to compare it to.

 

That's not to say "don't eat it", but it is a junk food which should be eaten in moderation.

 


 

Quote:
Common brown rice has moderate calorie density, has moderate protein and provides a good deal of nutrients. Far removed from a junk food like Marshmallows which is calorie dense, has no protein and contains little to no nutrients.

 

They both contribute negatively to overall nutrition by comparison to other whole foods, which contribute positively.  Brown rice is slightly less junky than marshmallows- which I said.  White rice is marginally better than marshmallows, and brown rice is marginally better than white.

pandiculationco is offline  
#9 Old 02-18-2014, 02:41 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Walnuts come in at around 2,000 calories for daily protein requirement, despite fat content.  Whether it comes in above or below depends on the variety.
Even if they didn't, the essential fatty acids (particularly the omega 3) are a major redeeming quality.
Walnuts and rice have roughly the same amount of protein per calorie.....both come it at around 50 grams per 2,000 calories. But the protein in Walnuts isn't as high quality as rice so, in fact, Walnuts are a poorer source of protein than rice. Walnuts have an overall lower nutritional value per calorie than brown rice as well.

If you think the omega-3 redeems Walnuts from their inferior protein and nutrient compared to brown rice, okay, but that is just one of numerous examples of whole foods that can't by themselves meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories. Under this criteria virtually all fruits would be "junk food", many whole grains, many nuts, many seeds, many vegetables (vegetables tend to have poor quality protein)., etc. Your criteria for a "junk food" is far removed from anything you'd find in mainstream nutritional science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

You should check some common healthy foods- it's rare to find one that doesn't fulfill protein needs (by the gram) at under 2,000 calories.
Not rare at all......many healthy whole plant foods won't even supply you enough grams per 2,000 calories and the majority won't supply you with enough quality protein per 2,000 calories. Again, its not just the amount of protein that matters....but the quality of the protein.
logic is offline  
#10 Old 02-18-2014, 04:08 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Rice is not a junk food! :0

 

Anything that you have to eat more than 2,000 calories of in a day to avoid severe malnutrition due to deficiency in protein is a junk food unless it has major redeeming qualities.

 

Rice is marginally superior to a bowl of marshmallows.  And mostly just because it won't rot your teeth as fast wink3.gif

 

That said, I do eat rice some times.  Among other junk food.

I don't agree with your definition of "junk food". Protein isn't the be-all and end-all of judging nutrition. Neither is "can I eat 2000 calories of only one food and get enough nutrition" because that is idiotic. When I eat rice, I certainly don't eat it by itself day and night.

Keep making "rules" like this and there won't be a vegan in sight.

Rice? A junk food? Tell that to cultures that have relied upon it for a staple for centuries.
Naturebound likes this.
LedBoots is offline  
#11 Old 02-18-2014, 04:11 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
"In terms of nutritional value and value of production, rice is the most important crop in the world. For 3.3 billion people living in Asia, rice provides 35-80% of their total calorie intake. Although rice provides some nutritional value, such as protein, minerals, vitamins, and fiber, it does not provide enough nutrition to be a main source of food (1). Brown rice has more nutritional value than white rice. This is because the outer brown layer to the rice contains proteins and minerals. (5) The white part of the rice is bmainly carbohydrates. (5) Rice can be stored indefinitely if it is stored in a cool, dry area." https://web.duke.edu/soc142/team3/Group%20Rice/History.htm
LedBoots is offline  
#12 Old 02-18-2014, 05:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
jessandreia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 1,616

What about having a main meal (like you do for dinner) for lunch, and having the sandwich in between depending on how soon/late you eat lunch/dinner? I know that I personally could never go with just a sandwich for lunch. Or have the sandwich for lunch but with some fruit.

Also, you could put more vegetables on the sandwich. Tomato, or grilled zucchini slices for example.


"We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form." - William Ralphe Inge

jessandreia is offline  
#13 Old 02-18-2014, 07:20 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


Walnuts and rice have roughly the same amount of protein per calorie.....both come it at around 50 grams per 2,000 calories. But the protein in Walnuts isn't as high quality as rice so, in fact, Walnuts are a poorer source of protein than rice. Walnuts have an overall lower nutritional value per calorie than brown rice as well.

 

Fried corn chips- 68.5 cal/g protein = 3836

 

White rice- 49 cal/g protein = 2744 calories

 

Walnuts- 43.6  2442  (redeeming qualities)

 

Brown rice- 43.2   2419

______________________________

 

Black rice- 32  1792

 

Blackberries- 31  1736

 

Flax- 29.7  1663

 

White sweet corn- 29.4   1646

 

Quinoa- 27.9  1562

 

Oats- 27.7  1551

 

Almonds- 26.5  1484

 

Black Walnuts- 25.8  1445

 

Blue corn- 25  1400

 

Peanuts- 23.9  1338

 

Wild rice- 23.7  1327

 

Collard greens- 12.4  694.4

 

I could go on- there are not many exceptions, and when there are, they're pretty obvious ones.

 

 

Junk foods are things that fall above the line, but lack substantial redeeming qualities.  They are things that contribute more to empty calories than to nutrition.

 

Rice is a very, very poor grain by comparison to any other I know.  White (and to a lesser extent brown) rice is the only grain I will generally call junk food.

I think I do so fairly.

 

In order for something that falls over that line to not be junk food, it has to have some pretty serious redeeming qualities that are hard to find in other foods (like high omega 3 content).  Flax is higher, but has a number of disadvantages to walnuts (Flax is prone to carcinogenic rancidity, more so than walnuts, and nearly impossible to sort).  I don't know very much about black walnuts.

 

Cranberries, at 115 calories per gram of protein (6440 for a 'day'), also fall above the line, and might have substantial enough redeeming qualities as a medicinal food.

 

There are a few other fruits I wouldn't call junk food as well.  The antioxidants and dense vitamin and mineral concentration have some value.

 

 

Anyway, the point about junk foods is that they are FINE in moderation.  But if you make a habit of eating those kinds of foods, you will tend to become obese or suffer from malnutrition.

If you eat things below the line, as a rule, you'll be better off (provided they're whole foods, and you eat a variety).

 

If you mix junk food and healthier food- like rice and beans, or corn chips and beans- it's no longer a junk food as a composite (as a proper meal).

 

Corn chips are terrible junk food, but if you top them with fat free refried beans, roasted peppers and onions, and fresh salsa- the DISH isn't junk food anymore.  The things you have put on the corn chips have redeemed the overall meal.

 

 

Quote:
If you think the omega-3 redeems Walnuts from their inferior protein and nutrient compared to brown rice, okay, but that is just one of numerous examples of whole foods that can't by themselves meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories.

 

One of very few.  But that is why I specifically said, the first time I mentioned it, "unless it has major redeeming qualities."  Because I know of several foods that do- and which are quite important at that.

 


 

Quote:

 

Under this criteria virtually all fruits would be "junk food", many whole grains, many nuts, many seeds, many vegetables (vegetables tend to have poor quality protein)., etc.

 

I wasn't able to find any grains aside from white or brown rice.  I found some listings for some kinds of corn that were just barely above the line- but I wasn't clear on what kind of corn that was.  People usually eat sweet corn.  And I usually eat blue corn.

 

I didn't look at all grains, though, so maybe you'll have more luck.

 

Most nuts and seeds do not fall above that line.

 

Very very few vegetables ever fall above that line.

 

Protein quality is not very important (you sacrifice a few grams of marginal utility, but I assume people are eating a variety of foods of that general quality, which should compliment whatever protein you're eating).

I didn't mean somebody should literally eat only that, but eating only foods of that general nutritional concentration in variety (based on that general rule) should be adequate.

 

It's a standard which removes foods that do not contribute significant positive nutritional value to the diet on their own.  That is, if they're whole foods, vitamin and mineral concentration also commonly correlates with protein.

 

I don't recommend never eating junk food, but doing so in moderation.

 

I don't see a big difference between most fruit (e.g. apples) and candy.

 

 

Quote:
Your criteria for a "junk food" is far removed from anything you'd find in mainstream nutritional science.

 

Not really.  A lot of whole foods get C nutritional ratings- particularly rice.  It takes a lot of flack (deservedly) today.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post


I don't agree with your definition of "junk food". Protein isn't the be-all and end-all of judging nutrition. Neither is "can I eat 2000 calories of only one food and get enough nutrition" because that is idiotic. When I eat rice, I certainly don't eat it by itself day and night.
 

 

Again, I didn't mean it literally "only eat that"; but as a standard "if you accepted foods like this as good and tended to eat these kinds of things", rice contributes negatively to your nutrition/calorie ratio.  It drags you down, and adding rice to your diet is a detriment to weight loss in particular, and has an opportunity cost.

 

The best foods are complete and balanced meals- and those can include a little bit of junk food too.  But it's something to be avoided for best nutrition- and a meal is better off without it from a nutritional standpoint.

 

Quote:
Keep making "rules" like this and there won't be a vegan in sight.

 

That... doesn't make sense.

 

Why will vegans die out if we admit rice is a junk food?

I think it could only benefit us to switch to more nutritious grains.

 

Quote:

Rice? A junk food? Tell that to cultures that have relied upon it for a staple for centuries.

 

 

I do.  I tell them to switch to black rice if they can afford it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

"In terms of nutritional value and value of production, rice is the most important crop in the world. For 3.3 billion people living in Asia, rice provides 35-80% of their total calorie intake. Although rice provides some nutritional value, such as protein, minerals, vitamins, and fiber, it does not provide enough nutrition to be a main source of food (1). Brown rice has more nutritional value than white rice. This is because the outer brown layer to the rice contains proteins and minerals. (5) The white part of the rice is bmainly carbohydrates. (5) Rice can be stored indefinitely if it is stored in a cool, dry area." https://web.duke.edu/soc142/team3/Group%20Rice/History.htm

 

Unlike most things below the line, which do provide enough nutrition to be a major staple.

 

When Asians eat 80% rice, most of the rest is often meat.  Because they don't have much of a choice at that point.

 

You're better off using almost any other whole carb source as your staple.

pandiculationco is offline  
#14 Old 02-18-2014, 08:27 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

I could go on- there are not many exceptions, and when there are, they're pretty obvious ones.
There are numerous examples and you are, once again, ignoring the issue of protein quality. While walnuts and rice have similar amounts of protein per calorie, the protein in walnuts is very poor quality and you'd have to eat double of it to meet your protein needs than rice. But, even if you ignore protein quality, there are numerous exceptions.....you're just not listing them. For example:

Apples.........180 cal/g 9,700 calories
Strawberry.. 50...2,700
Pine nut....... 50...2,700
Brazil nut.......45...2,430
Orange.........50...2,700

And if you considered protein quality many of the examples you listed wouldn't meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories. And as such, under your criteria, the vast majority of plant foods are "junk food".

In any case, brown rice is by no means a junk food and comparing it to marshmallows is silly. Brown rice is a reasonable source of a number of vitamins and minerals, fiber, protein and phytochemicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Protein quality is not very important (you sacrifice a few grams of marginal utility, but I assume people are eating a variety of foods of that general quality, which should compliment whatever protein you're eating).
You suggested that any food that can't, by itself, meet your protein needs at 2,000 is a junk food if it has no "major redeeming quality". Protein quality is critical to determining whether or not the food could meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories and saying its not important because people eat "a variety of foods obviously conflicts with trying to determine a foods junk-food status by looking at its protein in isolation.


In any case, comparing brown rice to marshmallows isn't even a remotely serious comparison. If you want to convince yourself that cheese-free nachos are healthy but brown rice is a junk food....be my guest.
logic is offline  
#15 Old 02-18-2014, 10:28 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


There are numerous examples and you are, once again, ignoring the issue of protein quality
And if you considered protein quality many of the examples you listed wouldn't meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories.
Protein quality is critical to determining whether or not the food could meet your protein needs at 2,000 calories

 

I already addressed this, and attempted to explain that wasn't what I meant.  

You're taking what I said out of context from a quick analogy... it was a very general analogy to try to explain nutritional density vs. caloric density.

 

You want a wordier explanation:

 

We should make a habit of eating things such that, if we only ate things of that same general nutritional density, we would not exceed our calorie goals before achieving adequate nutrition.

 

That's what I'm saying.  It's not that controversial.

 

Apparently I made a badly worded analogy that you ran with, ignoring my explanation after.  And that was NOT what I was trying to explain.  I was just trying to get the idea across in layman's terms.

 

'If you just at that [kind of stuff], you could still get enough basic nutrition.  If you just at marshmallows or [stuff like] white rice, you wouldn't.  Too many calories, not enough macro nutrients [which correlate pretty well to micro nutrients in whole plant foods]."

 

You can eat junk food- you just have to exercise careful portion control.

 

Some particular calorie dense items have some pretty unique mitigating factors (like being high in Omega 3, or Selenium [Brazil nuts]) so they have some significant value as healthy foods.  You should still portion control, but they can act as important supplements.

 

Things below that line, you can pretty much free feed on, and not worry very much about getting inadequate protein or consuming too many calories to get basic nutrition, as long as you eat a normal variety of foods.

 

But not all things below that line are healthy either.

 

 

I suggest this as a guide line for determining which foods are going to give more value per calorie.  The farther something is above that line, it's usually junkier food.

 

The line itself is where the default definition of a food goes from "marginally healthy" to "marginally junky".

 

 

I do kind of consider modern apples to be junk food.  They've been cultivated to contain a sickening amount of sugar.  There are some mitigating factors, but not enough to make up for the sugar content.

 

That's not to say don't eat them at all, but careful portion control is smart with junk food.

 

 

A rice dish can be made acceptable by the addition of tofu and vegetables for example- but you have to be careful to consider the dish as a whole if it includes white rice (in the same way you have to be careful about adding a lot of oil).  If it was black rice, you don't have to worry.  

And as to white rice's status as a junk food: it's the tofu and vegetables that are pulling most of the weight- the rice itself is mostly dead weight.  It's junk food, with no particularly unique beneficial qualities to offer the meal, only made up for by the fact that there are tofu and vegetables to carry it.

 

 

I know you disagree with the whole premise of calories as a particularly valuable measure of nutrition- so you can not agree with what I said.

 

But disagree with what I'm actually saying please, and not a straw man.

pandiculationco is offline  
#16 Old 02-21-2014, 03:44 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Apples equal candy?!?

Sorry Doug, that your thread was hijacked, partly by me. I will be flouncing now.
LedBoots is offline  
#17 Old 02-21-2014, 05:21 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Apples equal candy?!?

Sorry Doug, that your thread was hijacked, partly by me. I will be flouncing now.
Sorry ilovemybunny, I got the threads mixed up. Sorry I hijacked yours! smiley.gif
LedBoots is offline  
#18 Old 03-02-2014, 10:46 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

You're taking what I said out of context from a quick analogy... it was a very general analogy to try to explain nutritional density vs. caloric density.
You provided a criteria for determining whether something is a junk food or not and I used the criteria as you stated. If you want to updated what you said, well, okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

We should make a habit of eating things such that, if we only ate things of that same general nutritional density, we would not exceed our calorie goals before achieving adequate nutrition.
I'm not sure how this is any "wordier" than the previous criteria you gave.....but it suffers from the same problem. There are few foods that can meet human nutritional needs by themselves and as such almost all individual foods would be considered "junk food". Brown rice can meet, within 2,000 calories, your nutritional need for 8 vitamins and minerals and is more nutrient dense than most fruit and nuts.

Thinking of junk foods in terms of nutrient density is not controversial where the problem lies is that you're trying to come up with a criterion for junk food that is consistent with what you wish to believe about rice but what to ignore what it says about other foods that you don't want to think of as junk food.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

I do kind of consider modern apples to be junk food.  They've been cultivated to contain a sickening amount of sugar.  There are some mitigating factors, but not enough to make up for the sugar content.
All fruits have been cultivated to have higher sugar content and apples don't contain more sugar than other common fruits. Under your criterion, nearly all fruits would be "junk food".
logic is offline  
#19 Old 03-02-2014, 11:04 AM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

I'm not sure how this is any "wordier" than the previous criteria you gave.....but it suffers from the same problem. There are few foods that can meet human nutritional needs by themselves and as such almost all individual foods would be considered "junk food". Brown rice can meet, within 2,000 calories, your nutritional need for 8 vitamins and minerals and is more nutrient dense than most fruit and nuts.

 

That's fine, but it's not what I said- I'm talking about general nutrient density, not perfect nutritional balance.  I'm just looking at what a food offers, vs. what it costs in nutritional terms (and caloric content is an important cost).

 

I think I articulated what I said clearly enough to explain this.

 

Quote:
Thinking of junk foods in terms of nutrient density is not controversial 

 

No, it isn't controversial.  And that's all I'm doing.

 

 

Quote:

where the problem lies is that you're trying to come up with a criterion for junk food that is consistent with what you wish to believe about rice but what to ignore what it says about other foods that you don't want to think of as junk food.

 

 

I'm doing no such thing.

 

 

Quote:
All fruits have been cultivated to have higher sugar content and apples don't contain more sugar than other common fruits. Under your criterion, nearly all fruits would be "junk food".

 

The main fruits I eat are tomatoes, peppers, and various kinds of gourds and squash.  Of course, you might try to argue "those are vegetables"  Fine.

 

Sweet fruits are largely junk food for most people- sugar content is very high, and they don't offer a lot of redeeming qualities which can not be found readily in more nutritious and lower calorie contexts (the value of a redeeming quality is always relative to what other foods might otherwise offer that nutrient).

 

I like the nutritional profile more of many kinds of berries, which contain less sugar compared to their larger counterparts, and more rich antioxidants and other vitamins.  Blackberries may be the epitome of the healthy (non culinary vegetable) fruit.

 

I, however, believe it's OK to eat junk food in moderation.

Also, if you're burning more calories in a day, the bar at which things become junk food for YOU may change based on your needs.  For endurance athletes, sweet fruits can make a lot of sense because they need a rich source of carbohydrates.  Most people aren't endurance athletes, however, so as general health advice, what I said stands pretty well.

pandiculationco is offline  
#20 Old 03-02-2014, 11:35 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

That's fine, but it's not what I said- I'm talking about general nutrient density, not perfect nutritional balance.  I'm just looking at what a food offers, vs. what it costs in nutritional terms (and caloric content is an important cost).
What is general nutrient density? Foods don't have "general nutrient densities", they have particular nutrient densities and we are talking about the classification of individual food stuffs as junk food. Just how nutrient dense does a food have to be for it to longer be a junk food? It seemed as you were suggesting that it would have to meet your nutritional needs without exceeding your calories....but now you're saying that isn't what you said. So what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Sweet fruits are largely junk food for most people- sugar content is very high, and they don't offer a lot of redeeming qualities which can not be found readily in more nutritious and lower calorie contexts (the value of a redeeming quality is always relative to what other foods might otherwise offer that nutrient).
This is your opinion, but its not a view that is shared by mainstream science. The high sugar content of fruits is irrelevant, sugars in whole foods don't negatively impact health and sweet fruits have not be associated with metabolic disorders.....rather the opposite. Whole foods contain thousands of phytochemicals, they aren't just a package of fat, sugar, vitamins, etc....and by focusing just on these things you miss the big picture. Apples, for example, may not be nutrient dense but they've been shown to improve health when consumed.....the same can't be said for donuts, cookies and candy bars.

Claiming that sweet fruit and brown rice are "junk foods" is not only well outside of mainstream science, its entirely unhelpful for people trying to eat better. These foods don't have negative impacts on the body and can easily be part of a well-balanced diet.....the same can't be said of true junk foods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Also, if you're burning more calories in a day, the bar at which things become junk food for YOU may change based on your needs.
To say it again, junk foods are more than just nutrient poor foods. The components of true junk food, not the notion you came up with, have harmful effects on the body above and beyond being nutrient poor. Eating true junk food, even in moderation, is problematic because true junk foods have negative impacts on the body and are highly addictive. Putting apples and brown rice in the same category as cake, cookies, candy bars, etc is not a scientifically serious position.
logic is offline  
#21 Old 03-02-2014, 11:39 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
.
logic is offline  
#22 Old 03-02-2014, 12:40 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

Just how nutrient dense does a food have to be for it to longer be a junk food? It seemed as you were suggesting that it would have to meet your nutritional needs without exceeding your calories....but now you're saying that isn't what you said. So what?

 

Not that single food alone, but foods like it, in terms of nutrient densities (with variety, they'll have different nutrients that will compliment each other).

 

When we're talking about whole plant foods, the number of grams of total protein in the food is a pretty good approximation of its general nutrient density.  Perfect?  No.  But anything more rigorous is far too complicated for people to keep track of.  Looking at the protein content and doing simple division is pretty simple.

 

When we start talking about protein powders and sugary meal replacements, despite fitting the protein per calorie rule, there could be some issues as to real nutritional value where they need to be investigated more carefully.

 

 

A food's overall value is equal to = good stuff / bad stuff

 

When we're talking about plant based whole foods diets, most of the foods you're going to be consuming are pretty low in bad stuff and pretty high in good stuff.  

 

There aren't many foods in that context, aside from brown rice and sweet fruits, that you can easily eat in such an excess that, even with variety among those foods, you can develop serious nutritional deficiencies or gain weight due to excessive calorie consumption.

 

 

Quote:

The high sugar content of fruits is irrelevant, sugars in whole foods don't negatively impact health and sweet fruits have not be associated with metabolic disorders.....rather the opposite.

 

 

They do negatively impact health if they are taking up a substantial place in the diet, and pushing out other nutrient dense foods, or resulting in a caloric consumption so high as to promote obesity.

 

In moderation they're fine.

 

 

Quote:
Whole foods contain thousands of phytochemicals, they aren't just a package of fat, sugar, vitamins, etc....and by focusing just on these things you miss the big picture. Apples, for example, may not be nutrient dense but they've been shown to improve health when consumed.....the same can't be said for donuts, cookies and candy bars.

 

Something is not either just 100% junk food, or 100% healthy.  It's a subtle gradation.  Most people eat such terrible diets that they will benefit from more fruit consumption- which is healthier than most things they eat, and provides nutrients they tend to be lacking- particularly a good dose of fiber.

 

People already eating a whole foods plants based diets won't benefit much from what an apple has to offer, and instead have more to lose as apples would displace other more nutrient dense foods, and in some circumstances even make it difficult for them to get enough protein in their diets, or promote obesity due to excessive calorie consumption.

 

There are more people than you may imagine trying to live as vegans by eating mostly sweet fruits or rice (white or brown)- and they suffer for it, because it's hard to get enough macronutrients that way.

 

Sweet fruits and brown rice, even in variety, will satisfy caloric needs (or exceed them) long before they satisfy macronutrient needs.

 

 

To me, junk food is a kind of food that I see no reason to recommend that somebody eat- unless they like it, in which case they should eat it in moderation.

 

Anything good you get from sweet fruit can be gotten elsewhere from a better source.

 

 

Need vitamin C?

 

Oranges are a joke.  Red peppers are your best source- and much lower in sugar and tooth dissolving acid.

 

 

When a food contains a large negative (like too many calories), and what would be redeeming qualities falls far short of the competition (making them of less comparative value), that food becomes a junk food, relatively speaking, and I see no reason to recommend its consumption.

 

IF red peppers and other superior sources of vitamin C didn't exist, then the value of the vitamin C that oranges have to offer would increase, and oranges would no longer be junk food- but would be recommended for vitamin C consumption.

 

Nutrition is a matter of biological economics- supply and demand.

 

The reason I disparage even relatively healthy junk food (compared to candy bars and doughnuts) is because there are much better things we should be eating instead, which make their positive offerings of diminished value in that context.

 


 

Quote:
Claiming that sweet fruit and brown rice are "junk foods" is not only well outside of mainstream science, its entirely unhelpful for people trying to eat better.

 

I respectfully disagree with both claims.

 

I think it's substantiated by their nutritional profiles (and mainstream nutritional science), and that's it's a good recommendation to moderate consumption of these things because of their excessive caloric content and scant nutritional offerings- instead preferring superior sources of those nutrients as a rule.

 

I think if more vegans followed that kind of guideline, fewer would have nutritional problems which result from buying into the hype around some foods, and the naturalistic fallacy.

 

Quote:
These foods don't have negative impacts on the body and can easily be part of a well-balanced diet.....the same can't be said of true junk foods.

 

In moderation, they can certainly be part of a healthy diet.  Doughnuts and candy bars are worse than fruits- but I think they can ALSO be part of a healthy diet in much stricter moderation.

 

I can see no reason to recommend either very sweet fruits or doughnuts be included in a diet for nutritional reasons- and in that sense (that I don't recommend them, and I think they both offer more negative qualities than positive, just in different degrees) I call them both junk food.  I do not consider them to be equally bad junk food, sweet fruits being just barely over the line, and doughnuts being so far over to be barely visible, but I do consider them both to be junk food.

 

Quote:
To say it again, junk foods are more than just nutrient poor foods. The components of true junk food, not the notion you came up with, have harmful effects on the body above and beyond being nutrient poor. Eating true junk food, even in moderation, is problematic because true junk foods have negative impacts on the body and are highly addictive.

 

I understand you feel that way, but I don't agree.  I don't make a distinction between nutritionally poor junk food and "true" junk food.  I take everything in context, and I treat "natural" foods with the same care that I treat more 'man-made' foods (although I'd say they are both man-made, and both natural).

 

I don't think it's reasonable to give 'natural' fruits special treatment, and personally I think that's indulging in a naturalistic fallacy.  Doughnuts (at least those that are free of trans fats) can be OK in moderation, just as apples can (moderation just has to be a bit more moderated with doughnuts than with apples).

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.  IMO, my view is fully compatible with nutritional science.  I understand and respect that your view is different on these matters.

pandiculationco is offline  
#23 Old 03-02-2014, 03:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemybunny View Post
 

So at the moment I have a big problem with hunger. Im hungry all the time.All my doctors will say is its part of eating disorder recover. But iv gained so much weight in recovery im now over weight and id like to be well normal.

 

Im trying to make my meals as filling as possable but its not working. If I write down an average list of meals for me can anyone advise on how to make them more filling?

 

Breakfast: oatmeal

 

Lunch, quorn chicken and lettice sandwich,

 

dinner: bean burger, broccoli and rice

 

Even after finishing my meal im still starving so want to eat more. which leads to continous snack eating :(

If that's all I ate I'd be starving too. But then I am on the go all the time and get a lot of exercise because of my dogs. I find protein and fat to be the most filling. Guacamole on a sandwich for example makes it much more filling.

Wolfie is offline  
#24 Old 03-03-2014, 05:22 AM
Veggie Regular
 
clarita osita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,862
Yeah you guys, let's get back on the topic. If you want to discuss what constitutes junk food, start a new thread.

Ilovemybunny, sorry! First off, does your doctor agree that you are overweight, or do just you think that? If yes, does the doctor actually think that's a problem? It might be reality that your body needs to hold on to a little extra weight during your recovery. I don't have experience with EDs but your body probably needs to go a little in the other direction to balance itself out, you know? Try to think of it as your body trying to take care of itself. That's a GOOD thing.

Secondly, if you're hungry, eat more! Make sure you're following your doctor's calorie and nutritional recommendations of course, but you could definitely add more filling foods and some snacks. There have been some great recommendations so far, such as using whole grain bread, adding fruit to your oatmeal, more veggies on your sandwich, eating something else with your lunch, etc.

Check with your doctor, but adding a little healthy fat to every meal could help as well. Here's a link to some info: http://www.tum.de/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/short/article/30517/

The idea is that adding some healthy fat to your meals does two things: it helps you absorb fat-soluble vitamins (the vitamins that only absorb if they can bind to a fat), and it makes you feel full and satisfied. Some ideas are nuts, seeds, and avocados. Many people also believe olive oil and coconut oil are good options, too. Some people prefer whole food fats (like avocado or coconut meat); but for most people a little oil here and there probably isn't a problem.

If you've met your calorie goals and are still hungry, THEN you can try some low-calorie foods like carrots, berries, etc for snacks. But if you're not meeting your nutritional (i.e. calorie) goals, make sure you add. You can eat carrots with peanut butter or hummus, berries with dairy or non-dairy yogurt, trail mix with nuts and raisins.

I know it's frustrating to gain unwanted weight, but sometimes our bodies just need to do it. Try experimenting with adding a few new foods and see its effect (on your weight, yes, but especially on your health, hunger, and energy levels!). Good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
clarita osita is offline  
#25 Old 03-03-2014, 05:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
clarita osita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,862
Whoops, sorry, the first half resent and I can't delete it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
clarita osita is offline  
#26 Old 03-03-2014, 03:50 PM
 
Jordy Verrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 88

If rice were a junk food, there would be a major epidemic of unhealthy people in Asia.  However, just the opposite is true... Asians, specifically Asians eating a traditional diet that includes a lot of rice and vegetables with just about every meal, are typically the healthiest people in the world.  Rice is not a junk food, not even close.  I eat like a poor Asian person... rice and steamed veggies for just about every meal, and am losing weight and regaining my health. 

 

 

To answer the original question in this thread... I find that eating a potato or two is a quick, healthy way to suppress hunger.  I often keep cold boiled potatoes in my fridge to eat real quick when I feel like I need a snack or something. 

lavender phase likes this.
Jordy Verrill is offline  
#27 Old 03-03-2014, 04:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
lavender phase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,644
Awesome ! I do that too Jordy a couple steamed potatoes make a healthy snack smiley.gif
lavender phase is offline  
#28 Old 03-03-2014, 04:47 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy Verrill View Post
 

If rice were a junk food, there would be a major epidemic of unhealthy people in Asia.

 

Correlation is not the same as causation.  With all due respect, that kind of reasoning is neither logical, nor scientific.  I understand why you hold that opinion, but it's not a compelling argument.

 

Quote:
However, just the opposite is true... Asians, specifically Asians eating a traditional diet that includes a lot of rice and vegetables with just about every meal, are typically the healthiest people in the world.

 

Vegetables are healthy.  People who eat more of them, whether they're eating rice or doughnuts aside from that, are going to tend to be better off than people who don't.

 

Asians, particularly Chinese, also eat atrociously large amounts of vegetable oil (and today, large amounts of meat).  Japanese eat extremely large quantities of fish (and today, a lot more land-animal meat too).

 

There are many things people eat, and don't eat, around the world.  In order to draw conclusions about any of them, you have to isolate their effects in a controlled way- which just isn't plausible.

 

French people eat loads of cheese and butter, and yet have healthier cardiovascular systems- therefore cheese and butter are heart healthy?

What about wine, associated with lower risks of a number of diseases- is that healthy?

 

NO.  Both are bad for you.

 

French people walk more.  They take more vacation, and they work shorter hours.  Their lives are different from North Americans in so many ways you can't begin to draw conclusions about any one aspect of lifestyle from that.

 

 

The nutritional quality (or lack there of) of rice (white and brown) is why it's a junk food.  It's not a very bad junk food- there are worse ones for sure- but it is a junk food.  The nutritional qualities of other grains (including black rice and wild rice) are why they can be regarded as more healthful.

 

The numbers speak for themselves, and quite clearly.  And that's all the reliable information we really have to go on- and the numbers are all I'm considering, because who eats what in a regional context has no value as a theory- it serves only as a source of hypotheses at best.

 

Populations studies simply do not work to bolster theory, because they have nothing resembling controls.

 

 

Quote:

I eat like a poor Asian person... rice and steamed veggies for just about every meal, and am losing weight and regaining my health. 

 

 

If that's so, then the vegetables are compensating for the rice, and on the whole your diet is better than it was before.  That's fine.  It doesn't prove that rice is healthy, though- or even provide evidence for it.

 

If I said the same about a diet of vegetables and doughnuts, would that prove doughnuts were healthy food?  No.

 

If you switch the white/brown rice out for healthier grains, your diet will be even better.  Of course, it's up to you, if you like rice, it's fine to eat in moderation :)

 

 

 

My concern is that actual protein and other nutrient deficiency due to low quality high calorie foods (like rice, but also like western side salads and chips) may be the leading causes that some vegans and vegetarians see nutritional problems, which leads to recidivism- and encouraging eating calorie heavy and nutrient poor foods like white/brown rice as a staple is, IMO, bad practice and more likely to harm people trying their best to become veg*n.

 

 

I like rice.  It's yummy.  I also like vegan doughnuts.  I can't responsibly recommend either of these things for inclusion as a dietary staple- particularly for anybody struggling with weight.

 

I say these things are junk food because there's no good reason to recommend them for inclusion in the average diet (though they're fine in moderation), given so many superior alternatives today.

 

I'm trying to look out for people's health- particularly aspiring vegans who may have trouble getting enough nutrition if they rely heavily on these junk foods (calorie rich, comparatively nutrient poor foods).

 

 

 

 

That said:

 

Potatoes are pretty good.

That's a decent food to fill up on (as long as there's no oil/margarine or anything like that) :) 

pandiculationco is offline  
#29 Old 03-03-2014, 10:52 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Not that single food alone, but foods like it, in terms of nutrient densities (with variety, they'll have different nutrients that will compliment each other).

When we're talking about whole plant foods, the number of grams of total protein in the food is a pretty good approximation of its general nutrient density.  
Foods like it? What does that mean? Foods with similar nutrients? Foods with similar nutrient densities? In either case you have the same problem, there are a lot of whole plant foods that have similar nutrient densities as brown rice and as such all of these foods will be deemed "junk food". Fruits, many nuts, many grains.....heck...most of the whole foods people eat will be "junk food". Not a helpful criterion at all.

Protein isn't a good approximation of nutrient density, there are numerous counter-examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandiculationco View Post

Need vitamin C?

Oranges are a joke.  Red peppers are your best source- and much lower in sugar and tooth dissolving acid.
One medium orange will meet the daily recommended intake for vitamin C.....hardly a joke. The fact that there are some foods that are higher in vitamin C doesn't mean one should avoid oranges and under this logic one may as well just take a vitamin C supplement.

In any case, you keep ignoring some critical issues. Namely, foods aren't just containers for protein, fat, vitamins, etc....they contain thousands of compounds and all these compounds have effects on your health. Also, you keep ignoring the fact that the components of true junk food have health consequences independent of being nutrient poor. Consuming refined carbohydrates, refined sugars, refined oils and refined proteins all have health consequences above and beyond being nutrient poor. One should give fruits special treatment, not because they are natural per se, but because they've been routinely associated with improved health......needless to say but donuts and candy bars have not.

In any case, as someone else mentioned, this has gotten well off topic so I'm done. Plus I have some nice juicy...sugary..pineapple waiting for me.
logic is offline  
#30 Old 03-03-2014, 11:18 PM
 
pandiculationco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


Foods like it? What does that mean? Foods with similar nutrients? Foods with similar nutrient densities? In either case you have the same problem, there are a lot of whole plant foods that have similar nutrient densities as brown rice and as such all of these foods will be deemed "junk food". Fruits, many nuts, many grains.....heck...most of the whole foods people eat will be "junk food". Not a helpful criterion at all.
 

 

Nutrient densities.

 

And no, you do not have the same problem.  White and brown rice stand quite alone among grains.  There are not "many grains" that have the same nutrient density.  I count none that are worse than rice.

 

The only thing that arguably comes close is some corn cultivars.  I recommend blue corn rather than the white/yellow varieties, but even so, white and yellow corn is usually better than rice.

 

Few nuts are even in the ballpark of rice- those that are (such as walnuts) usually have redeeming qualities that make them worth recommending.

 

Very few, and almost no whole foods fall into the junk food category by that simple approximation.

 

White/brown rice, and very sweet fruits (which are the candies of the plant world) are the only major examples.
One could easily avoid them, and benefit from it.

 

Quote:

One medium orange will meet the daily recommended intake for vitamin C.....hardly a joke. The fact that there are some foods that are higher in vitamin C doesn't mean one should avoid oranges and under this logic one may as well just take a vitamin C supplement.

 

 

Peppers are just good foods.  They provide all around good nutrition, and high nutrient density.

 

You can take pills if you want, but it's not necessary to take pills for something when you can get it from nutrient dense foods (as opposed to nutrient poor foods, or ones with other negative health consequences).

 

From a health perspective alone, we should take a B-12 pill instead of eating large amounts of meat or liver, because the meat and liver have a lot of bad qualities that contraindicate them in a healthy diet.

 

There's no reason to take vitamin C rather than eat nutrient dense foods.  There's no reason to eat oranges, which are not nutrient dense, as a way of getting vitamin C.

 

In moderation, as candy, they can be a part of a healthy diet- but they're the part that's being carried by the rest, not the bit that's doing the carrying.  That's what junk food is.

 

Quote:

 

Protein isn't a good approximation of nutrient density, there are numerous counter-examples.

 

I gave some counter-examples.  But when we're considering the most commonly deficient macro-nutrient in the junkfood vegan diet, it's extremely important.

 

It's a good approximation not because there aren't counter-examples (there are always counter-examples for approximations, otherwise they wouldn't be approximations anymore), but because it usually works, and it's quick to figure out.


 

Quote:
Also, you keep ignoring the fact that the components of true junk food have health consequences independent of being nutrient poor. Consuming refined carbohydrates, refined sugars, refined oils and refined proteins all have health consequences above and beyond being nutrient poor.

 

Things like trans-fats and carcinogens are worth taking into account- just as are phytates and other anti-nutrients in whole foods.

 

The true equation for junk food is = good / bad

 

Relatively empty calories just happen to be a very important matter in the bad category.

 

I think you're ignoring sound nutritional science, and the importance of calories in favor of something that seems a little 'out there', by attributing near-supernatural negative properties to foods you consider to be junk foods.  The actual studies on those matters are very weak, and are not properly controlled.

 

I understand why you think about them the way you do, and I can respect your views, but I don't really agree.

 

 

Quote:

One should give fruits special treatment, not because they are natural per se, but because they've been routinely associated with improved health......needless to say but donuts and candy bars have not.

 

 

 

That's an interesting question for further research if that is the case, but correlation does not equal causation.  There are many factors that are not taken into account- and I believe the actual causes for these associations are just that doughnuts and candy bars taste better to many people and are easier to overeat.  

 

If somebody were to actually regulate calorie consumption (e.g. not eating without control- and yes, I have just eaten a couple of chips, because I can set limits and stop myself) and eating patterns (vs. the fast binge cycle), eating doughnuts and candy bars that have been nutritionally fortified to match or exceed fruits and consuming an adequate intake of water with them, I would expect similar or superior results to the fruit group.


 

Quote:
In any case, as someone else mentioned, this has gotten well off topic so I'm done. Plus I have some nice juicy...sugary..pineapple waiting for me.

 

Sounds delicious.  Pineapple is candy, but like I've said many times, I'm a supporter of junk food in moderation, as an occasional treat, and partake regularly in moderated amounts of junk food myself (partly for convenience, partly for variety/experimentation in cooking).  The trick is moderation :)

pandiculationco is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off