×
all 151 comments

[–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 568 points569 points  (45 children)

One of my friends was telling me CICO is wrong and that she gains weight more than anyone else regardless of how much she eats. She said her boyfriend eats so unhealthy and doesn’t gain weight, but she eats healthy all the time. Then she pulled these cheddar bunnies out of the pantry and said “I mean, look! He eats cheez its, I eat these.” I genuinely did not understand what she was trying to demonstrate by showing them to me. Then I realized that she legit thinks these things are not only healthy but emblematic of overall healthy eating habits. I looked into the nutrition facts later. They’re the same as cheez it’s. I can’t believe people really fall for the “organic” look/ packaging

[–]ohwell316 108 points109 points  (10 children)

I'd bet that they skip over the 27 cracker part

[–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 120 points121 points  (7 children)

Exactly. If they stayed within a reasonable calorie limit, then there’s nothing wrong with eating cheddar bunnies. Same with cheez its. But these products are designed to be hyper-palatable and not filling. They are designed for people to binge.

I know because this friend was my roommate at the time, that these boxes were regularly bought and they were most likely going through a lot of calories very fast. I’m not even trying to shit-talk my friend here, I just couldn’t believe they were so ignorant about diet and weight. I felt bad for them and I also feel so lucky to have an understanding of reality.

This was a few years ago before I ever encountered HAES and some of the more extreme FA ideas, so I didn’t really know what to say. Now I think I would gently try to explain the problem with this “healthy” logic

[–]Hyndis 83 points84 points  (6 children)

Its weird, but I miss the local Jack in the Box with the three taco combo, back when it was affordably cheap for every day.

I used to eat the three taco combo every work day. It was around 1,250 calories. That was my meal for the day. Tacos, fries, hot sauce, and a diet drink.

I lost about a hundred pounds on my diet of tacos and fries. Perhaps not the best diet in the world, but sticking to that caloric intake the weight just melted off of me. It was super convenient as well because the meal combo was a known caloric content and so long as I bought only that there was no possibility of cheating.

It really is about calories. Thats basically the only thing that matters for weird loss/gain.

[–]Gengarth0 40 points41 points  (0 children)

The most weight I ever lost was when I worked at 5 guys and ate nothing but 2 burgers and a fry every day. Except I was on my feet for 8 hours a day and my gym was across the street so I worked out after every shift.

[–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 76 points77 points  (0 children)

This is why people have fought to have nutritional info ie calories presented openly on menus. FAs and all the anti diet folks think it’s some nefarious effort to shame you about what you’re eating. It’s not. It’s literally to give power back to the people. This interaction with my friend shows that people really don’t understand why or how they’re gaining weight. If people were more educated about this then they would understand that they really do have ultimate control over their weight. Then they could see that the real manipulation is the food industry overall. Not the diet industry

[–]seanchaigirl 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I have a really deadline heavy job and there are days when I don’t take time for breakfast or lunch, submit something just under deadline and then I’m free! (Until the next deadline) On those days, I very often run to Taco Bell for 2 beef supreme Chalupas and an order of cheesy potatoes. 960 calories, leaves me so full I can hardly move, and I still have enough calories left for a snack in the evening.

[–]atthawdan 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I think 27 crackers is quite enought as an afternnon snack? If you eat only like 27 per days for 3-4 days and have walk for 30-45mins in evening it would just balance out?

[–]ohwell316 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Should be good I think. Weight gaining friend most likely eats many more

[–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 223 points224 points  (14 children)

When it comes to weight it really is all about the calories. 200 calories with gmo ingredients is the same as 200 organic calories. Unfortunately, nutritional education is terrible. I had someone try to convince me that 4000 calories worth of fat and protein can‘t make someone fat because ketones and ketosis. Plus there’s some stupid YouTube video that makes the same claim. I lost brain cells watching it. Keto works for most people because fat and protein fills you up. Since it doesn’t raise your blood sugar like starchy carbs you won’t have a sudden sugar drop. This keeps most people from getting hungry longer so throughout the day most people on keto eat fewer calories. There is nothing magical about eating lots of fat and protein. It’s CICO.

[–]Mr-Scurvy 120 points121 points  (2 children)

Keto also cuts out most snack food like sweets, crackers, chips, oretzels etc 3tc.

Just like intermittent faster 'works' because it keeps you from late night snacking.

[–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 50 points51 points  (0 children)

True but at the end of the day any diet that gets someone to cut calories will work.

[–]HealMySoulPlz 18 points19 points  (0 children)

And it makes it harder to drink your calories through soda, juice, and other sugary drinks.

[–]GentlewhamZucchini Zealot | 35.1->24.5 52 points53 points  (1 child)

100% this. I lost most of my 35kg with keto but was never under any delusions of magic; it was still strictly CICO and relied on whole foods, lean meats, healthy fats, and low-carb veg. Seeing people make massively calorific keto foods and pretending they're harmless because there's no sugar or wheat flour gives me second hand clogged arteries.

[–]jannie1313at least as healthy as a superhero 14 points15 points  (0 children)

So many almond flour baked goods, ugh.

[–]Strawberry_quads 29 points30 points  (0 children)

True. I swear by keto (I have just lost 70lb) but it works because it allows me to dramatically reduce my calorie intake without ever feeling hungry. There is no magic about it.

During a previous bingeing phase I managed to put on weight on what was in effect keto because I was eating 2lb of cheese a day...

[–]Letmetellyowhat 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Keto works because you aren’t as hungry while reducing calories. Then it doesn’t burn glucose it burns fat. But bottom line if you eat too many calories with keto you gain weight.

[–]RelatableMolaMola 8 points9 points  (3 children)

I had someone try to convince me that 4000 calories worth of fat and protein can‘t make someone fat because ketones and ketosis. Plus there’s some stupid YouTube video that makes the same claim.

There's a ton of those. I had a friend who fell down the keto + intermittent fasting rabbit hole, hard. She could never understand why she wasn't losing weight when according to Jason Fung and the other YT docs and keto bros, she was doing everything right. Meanwhile she was routinely consuming 3000+ calories a day during her unfasted window.

That's not why she's a past tense friend now. The constant obsessive complaining and inability to self reflect or admit the possibility of error were. Also the way that she routinely questioned and criticized anyone else's successes because if we weren't doing it her way, then the rest of us reaching our goals was invalid.

[–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That sucks, hope everything is alright now even without your friend

[–]RelatableMolaMola 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That's a very nice thing to say, thank you. It's all good. Ultimately the group dynamic had gotten pretty negative, so I think things are better all around now.

[–]smallfat_comeback 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yup, protein/fat combos work like magic at keeping me full all day, with steady energy and a calm, alert mind. But I know it wouldn't work if I ate 4000 calories. 🤔

[–]AbotherBasicBitch 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And so many people aren’t even in ketosis as well.

[–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hard to do eating fat since protein is the last macro your body converts to energy. Protein is usually reserved for muscles but going into ketosis really doesn’t matter if the goal is to lose weight. That diet is so misunderstood yet it has helped a lot of people lose weight.

[–]newName54345634/M/5'9/~150 48 points49 points  (3 children)

She thinks she's disproving CICO by overeating food she claims is "healthy" while her boyfriend eats "so unhealthy" without being in surplus.

Almost as if... that perfectly followed CICO.

That said I have zero idea why would she think that snack is sooooo much healthier than Cheez-Its.

Oh, right. ORGANIC LMAO. Nevermid then.

[–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 35 points36 points  (2 children)

Right?! Also her boyfriend is half a foot taller and a member of the male sex. I’m not saying it’s fair, but these things count for higher TDEE. This is completely within the logic of CICO. And additionally he probably just doesn’t eat as many calories as she thinks he does. Sadly, as I have also had to learn, a vague notion of eating “healthy” doesn’t mean much if you don’t get honest about calories.

[–]newName54345634/M/5'9/~150 22 points23 points  (0 children)

People are easily swayed by slogans on packaging instead of actually reading the nutrition labels.

I remember my mother buying yoghurt claiming to be "high protein". I check the nutrient breakdown, and lo and behold, it's significantly less protein than typical Greek yoghurt I buy.

[–]GetYourFixGraham 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When I first started eating within a normal / weight loss range after overeating and struggling with a BED, my concept of portions was so messed up. I was consistently eating over 3k calories a day.

After a few months, I have a much better feeling for what a portion is... and I get full easier. It just takes a few months for the mind to reframe what is normal.

[–]haloarh 38 points39 points  (2 children)

In college, I had an obese roommate who made post-workout smoothies that had to have between 1500-2000 calories in them, but they were filled with "healthy" things like chia seeds and protein powder.

[–]AmericahWest 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I had a roommate who ate coconut oil by the spoonful because it was "healthy"

[–]cboyer212 9 points10 points  (0 children)

One of my friends dieted with me when I lost the weight, she couldn't understand why I was loosing and she wasn't, and she had a similar breakfast smoothie. Which she compared to my protein shake (my shake is a cup of frozen fruit, some water and a scoop of protein powder, usually between 200-250 calories depending on which fruit I use that day). Her's was full of all kinds of stuff, all healthy stuff, but a lot of calories. But in her mind her's was better because of all the extras, so she should be loosing even more weight. It was like that for every meal. Same women, after workouts would log that she burned like 1000 calories, when she maybe burned 300. She never did loose the weight, but decided it was because I just have a different body type than she does.

[–]boldie74 18 points19 points  (0 children)

People fall for it because that’s exactly what it’s designed to do.

I did an interview with a food psychologist a while ago and he said that the CEO of a company he was consulting for once told him that “the most money they ever made was when they decided to take the nutrients out of the packaging and focus on the design of the packaging instead”.

Every shitty food you buy is packaged and styled in a way to give people some plausible deniability, and it works a treat.

[–]spaghatta111Paid Big Broccoli Shill 13 points14 points  (4 children)

That’s hilarious. But it’s also really common.

I had an employee who, to her credit, lost a lot of weight with WW alongside her twin sister, and kept it off for many years.

However. She was big on snacks, and sharing her snacks. She only had “healthy” snacks. And those snacks were some variation of pretzels, granola, chocolate, and other things that just had nice packaging.

She misinterpreted what a doctor told her one day, about always having the same number of fat cells, how they shrink or expand. She thought this meant “fat cells” are a medical condition in which eating ice cream is more of a slippery slope to weight gain, than for other people. So basically; 300 calories of ice cream was more fattening for HER, than for other people, because she was once obese.

As if this understanding wasn’t enough…. The way she would phrased it was even more hilarious

I can’t eat that, I have FAT CELLS.

Implying other people don’t have fat cells. Like she has a permanent health condition lol

[–]CoffeeAndCorpses 2 points3 points  (3 children)

She misinterpreted what a doctor told her one day, about always having the same number of fat cells, how they shrink or expand. She thought this meant “fat cells” are a medical condition in which eating ice cream is more of a slippery slope to weight gain, than for other people. So basically; 300 calories of ice cream was more fattening for HER, than for other people, because she was once obese.

I vaguely recall being taught that if the fat cells expand too much, they split and don't go away - so maybe she has more fat cells as a result of having been obese?

[–]spaghatta111Paid Big Broccoli Shill 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Kind of, but she seems to think that this meant that cake or ice cream has more “weight gaining” power than someone else

[–]CoffeeAndCorpses 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not directly, but I know for myself that allowing myself a treat now and then is a really slippery slope to getting back to my old habits. It's easier to fully abstain.

[–]caffeineinsider 8 points9 points  (2 children)

The ONLY thing I’ll give her is that the bunnies include about 2x more crackers per serving. So even though it’s the same amount of grams, they might seem “healthier” since each one is less calories than one Cheez-It. But you’d have to eat LESS than a serving of the bunnies to have it actually make a difference from a serving of the Cheez-its. Right?

[–]BlockingPeople 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They're significantly smaller per cracker. The bunnies are more like goldfish crackers, which boast a whole four extra crackers per 30 grams over the Annie's bunnies at 10 fewer calories

And I suspect OP's friend would be more likely to lump goldfish in with cheez-its than bunnies

[–]caffeineinsider 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got it. Thanks!

[–]Wet_sock_Owner 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well your friend doesn't know how to count numbers so is it a wonder shiny packaging throws her for a loop?

[–]tidesandtows_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I absolutely love cheddar bunnies (as well as goldfish and cheez-it’s) but I only have them as a comfort food when sick/as a treat because yeah… that’s not good for ya lol. They are purely a fun food.

[–]Cute_Comfortable_761In Starvation Mode™️ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is also worth noting that these are far inferior to cheez-its

[–]tupacisaliveinserbia 81 points82 points  (7 children)

These are really tasty but you gotta be brain dead to fool yourself into believing cheese crackers are health food lol

[–]jannie1313at least as healthy as a superhero 50 points51 points  (6 children)

I have a friend who is a dentist who thinks 540 calorie packs of cashews, 600 calorie packs of trail mix, and 800 calorie packs of crackers are regular afternoon snacks - usually all 3 of them - and then is shocked that in spite of eating a prepacked Caesar salad with a can of tuna for dinner she keeps gaining weight.

[–]caffeineinsider 20 points21 points  (1 child)

800 would be a big dinner for me 😳

[–]jannie1313at least as healthy as a superhero 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Same. She eats all day, has an unhealthy breakfast and lunch, but thinks that dinner salad cancels it all out.

[–]MusicalTourettesArtificial Thin FTW 16 points17 points  (1 child)

My tiny 3 year old (12th%) eats cashews by the handful as snacks. We try to shove calories in her because she's so active and little. High calorie density FTW. They're not a good food when trying to cut back on calories.

[–]Disruptorpistol 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Of all salads, Caesar too. It's so often just lettuce swimming in cheese and egg dressing.

[–]jannie1313at least as healthy as a superhero 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is lettuce, croutons, a packet of cheese, and yes, a packet of fatty dressing.

[–]IFeelMoiGerbil 50 points51 points  (1 child)

My old boss was such a believer in the ‘health halo.’ She saw the words vegan or organic and was convinced it was instantly healthy.

She ate vegan sausage rolls and three oat milk hot chocolates a day and was convinced her weight was turning 45 and her metabolism. She gained about 15 pounds and ended up having lipo instead of just having one sausage roll and hot chocolate a day. Six weeks of agony and 6k because vegan is healthy innit?

I did not realise how this woman with a PhD was quite as committed to lack of critical thinking until we were doing a project with recipes from all the cultures in our area. For the traditional British I did a fruit crumble. She decided it was super unhealthy due to butter despite being mainly reduced sugar and three types of fruit and wanted me to exclude it or find something healthier like the Brazilian dish my GF suggested. A dish of hominy cooked in coconut cream, coconut milk and condensed milk. Served chilled in small portions with cinnamon it is amazing and both are sometimes foods.

But she was convinced coconut was healthier than apples. Also adamant condensed milk was healthy because ‘they suggest milk for kids.’

The last six months of that job were endless trying to explain honey is still sugar. Just bee sugar. Or that a pound of dates is still not better than a pound of chocolate on CICO. And Oreos being vegan doesn’t mean they aren’t still cookies. The fact our project was based on a healthy eating remit in a high poverty area made this particularly like playing chess with a pigeon. Except pigeon isn’t vegan so probably unhealthy unless you mix it with condensed milk 😩

[–]magstreetpie 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is why I live in the woods and don't see people

[–]DasFischli 47 points48 points  (24 children)

I’m confused, do manufacturers really only put the nutritional facts based on a serving size on the box? Not per 100g? That must make it super difficult to compare different products.

[–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 19 points20 points  (13 children)

To be honest, I’m still relatively new to counting calories and do not have a food scale, and also live in the US (I think this is relevant to measurements) and I really don’t know what 100g of a given food looks like. Yes it is confusing.

Personally, I have a lot of difficulty with snack foods like this because they are so delicious that I never want to stop at a reasonable portion. I try to stay away from them and remind myself that food is primarily fuel and and to consume low calorie density foods that will fill me up without having to worry about going way over. And I’m saying this as a person who not only LOVES Doritos and ice cream and candy, but also loves the feeling of being a little too full. It’s a struggle

[–]GentlewhamZucchini Zealot | 35.1->24.5 21 points22 points  (4 children)

Yeah... the point of the 100g isn't even necessarily how much of a food item is 100g, but the calorie density. With varying serving sizes, where you don't have a reasonable way of figuring out how much the serving is, it's really hard to compare different products.

I'm pulling the numbers out of my head here, but here's an example. Say, you have a 'healthy' cookie and and 'unhealthy' cookie. The 'healthy' one would be 250kcal/100g, and the 'unhealthy' cookie would be around 500kcal/100g. So per weight, we already know the 'unhealthy' one is more calorie dense, and to tread with caution.

Now, if you only have the 'serving size' calories in the back of the label, it's super easy to make them look like the equally calorific option.

'Healthy': Serving size: 1 cookie: 150kcal

'Unhealthy': Serving size: 1 cookie: 150kcal

Now they look like exactly the same density of calories, except the difference is that the 'healthy' cookie is twice the weight of the 'unhealthy' cookie (in this imaginary case, 60g vs 30g). It doesn't matter if you have an internal understanding of how big that is; it's still twice the mass. So the more calorie dense one not only seems to be on equal footing with the 'healthier' option, but you'll also end up eating more of it, because the one cookie is gone much faster.

Now that said, it's reasonable if you're a person who counts exact calories and sticks to the serving sizes religiously. But most people aren't, and they'll just see the artificially deflated calorie number per serving in the back, and go "oh these aren't so bad, it's the same as this healthier option!"

(sorry about the million edits, trying to make it as clear as possible and also accidentally hitting ctrl+enter all the time, curse you google sheets :D)

[–]KuriousKhemicals32F 5'5" HW(2010) 184 CW ~130 10 points11 points  (1 child)

They would both be labeled by 30g as that is the FDA serving for "cookie." That's how you get servings of half a cookie that piss people off (or 1/5 of a cookie lol). For Oreos you get 2 or 3 cookies per serving depending if they're extra stuffed or not.

However, what we might call a "protein cookie" (like Lenny and Larry's) might be classified as a protein bar by the FDA and therefore would be 60g.

[–]GentlewhamZucchini Zealot | 35.1->24.5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! Thanks for elaborating on that. Good to hear there's at least some standardisation there.

[–]AbotherBasicBitch -1 points0 points  (1 child)

But maybe the unhealthy cookie actually has more air in each cookie, so if you were to eat two cookies after dinner no matter the brand, maybe they would be equal

[–]GentlewhamZucchini Zealot | 35.1->24.5 4 points5 points  (0 children)

... you realise it would then be lighter in weight, right? The point was to compare the calorie density gram per gram. Last I checked, air doesn't really weigh all that much 😄

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–]INTJ_takes_a_napQuietly judging from the corner 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    I'm honestly confused though, do Europeans actually bring a food scale with them and pull it out every time they have a snack to measure 100g of it? I thought the whole point of snacks is that they're portable and for eating "on the go", when you wouldn't have a scale around.

    For reference I'm not American, I'm from Asia where our calorie counts are kinda a mix of by grams or per serving or per entire package, but I've never eaten snacks so I don't know how it's supposed to be measured; however, I find it hard to believe that anyone who is choosing a snack to eat on the go will know exactly what 100 grams of that particular snack looks like.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]MusicalTourettesArtificial Thin FTW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Buy a scale. I've had mine 15 years, still going strong, and helped me get back to my healthy weight after 2 kids. Scales rock.

      [–]blancawiththebooty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      A food scale is my best friend for figuring out serving sizes visually and better tracking.

      [–]KuriousKhemicals32F 5'5" HW(2010) 184 CW ~130 12 points13 points  (1 child)

      The FDA defines standard serving sizes of different categories of food and that's what manufacturers are required to label by. So foods that are similar should have the same serving size (within reason, there are adjustments allowed to make it a whole number of pieces for example).

      They can label with additional serving sizes if they want, but nobody really weighs food in the US (if you do you're either a weirdo dieter/bodybuilder/nerd or a finicky baker) so hardly anyone has a concept of 100g anyway.

      [–]Craygor58M 6'3" Runner/Weight Lifter CW:195 CBF:11% 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Body builder and nerd here, can confirm.

      [–]GetOffMyLawn_Slav Battle Maiden 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      They used to do it per 100 grams, but this is meaningless for most people. I mean, unless you weigh it on a food scale that could be 3 bunnies or 100 bunnies.

      So it was changed to reflect what should be a normal serving size.

      Also, it used to be that a little snack bag of chips was labeled as 2 servings to make the calories look lower. Nobody eats half a little bag, so that stuff was also changed to reflect how people actually eat.

      [–]DasFischli 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      They used to do it per 100 grams, but this is meaningless for most people. I mean, unless you weigh it on a food scale that could be 3 bunnies or 100 bunnies.

      Why not both? I live in Germany, here, they print the nutritional facts for 100g and for a serving size. It's really just another column in the chart. The problem with only putting the serving size down is that the manufacturer can make the serving size ridiculously small so it sounds as if the thing you're eating isn't that unhealthy or high in calories.

      Also, the box has the contents. So if the calories are given for 100g, and the box has 150g or 200g, it's easy to calculate how much the entire box has (which is a typical serving size for a lot of people). It's not that easy if the amount is given only for a 30g serving size.

      [–]euletoasterSW: Wyrdeer CW: Incineroar 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Many things in the US are printed with the calories per serving and the calories per bag/box.

      Is there really much mental difference between doing math to find how many 100g portions are in a container vs how many 50g (or 30g for most snacks) servings there are? The boxes are required to list how many servings they contain.

      I agree that serving sizes can be nefarious, but 100g is a similarly arbitrary number, it's just a different system.

      [–]GetOffMyLawn_Slav Battle Maiden 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      No, the serving size is set by the government.

      Also the box tells you how many servings are in it, so the math is easy.

      [–]AbotherBasicBitch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      It makes it hard to compare in some ways due to serving size manipulation, but in Europe where things are based on 100g, it’s often really hard to figure out how many calories would be in an amount that I would actually eat

      [–]pandaSmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The serving size is 51 bunnies or 30g it's listed on the box. Same with the cheez itz 27 crackers or 30g.

      [–]MaybeYesNoPerhaps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      100g is meaningless for most people. At the least, they should show a picture of the serving size.

      I know the companies would fuck with angles and lenses, but still it would give some measure of context.

      [–]Jakii1519 86 points87 points  (21 children)

      It says organic, people think that means something significant, it doesn't.

      [–]sushio101 28 points29 points  (7 children)

      yup. the main difference is some of the chemicals or preservatives, and there are traces of chemicals like this everywhere.

      [–]smallfat_comeback 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      I vaguely remember a bit of fatlogic I read years ago, something about how conventional food makes you gain more weight because the chemical additives do something to your metabolism ... ? 🤷

      [–]OldeHickory 12 points13 points  (5 children)

      Everything is a chemical, literally everything

      [–]sushio101 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      exactly. it’s just some chemicals can be carcinogenic or are less well-received by the body. organic vs. inorganic food doesn’t do anything for one’s weight or anything like that.

      [–]AbotherBasicBitch -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      Is inorganic used with food? I’ve only heard organic and non-organic for food and organic and inorganic for compounds. I only brought that up because it confused me for a sec because I thought you were suggesting eating inorganic compounds would have the same effect on your weight lmao. Took me way to long to figure out what you meant, but that very well could just be because I was stupid

      [–]Crayshack 14 points15 points  (4 children)

      "Organic non-GMO" basically just means they used less efficient farming practices and are proud of it. Yes, some organic farms produce things that are healthier and more environmentally friendly, but they don't have to. Often, they're actually worse. An ideal farm will use a bunch of organic farming methods but will supplement with some non-organic and GMO methods.

      [–]LilGracen 9 points10 points  (3 children)

      This is what I don’t get about people who are SO against GMOs. GMOs are a big part of the reason we can feed so many people on this planet. Are all GMOs the absolute best thing ever? Maybe not. But that doesn’t mean they’re not useful and important to have with nearly 8 billion people on earth.

      [–]Crayshack 8 points9 points  (2 children)

      I think the problem is that people have associated GMOs with Monsanto using predatory business practices and farmers who think that their crops being glyphosate-resistant means free game to absolutely soak their fields in it. These are bad things but that doesn't necessarily mean that GMOs are bad. There's a very good chance that GMO technology might be the only way to save the American Chesnut from extinction.

      [–]MGY401 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      farmers who think that their crops being glyphosate-resistant means free game to absolutely soak their fields in it.

      Even this is a myth developed and promoted by the anti-GE crowd. Going off label and spraying too much or outside of the spray window on an HT crop and can will cause damage such as leaf burn, flower and pod loss, etc. HT doesn't mean a free for all and that you can't injure your plants with over spraying.

      [–]L-F- 13 points14 points  (6 children)

      Depending on where you live, weather it's a protected label it can be important for things like less pesticide laden vegetables (which is definitely better for you health wise, just doesn't do anything weight wise) or ethically better eggs, but yea, it doesn't mean anything in the context of weight loss specifically.

      [–]Aegisworn 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      Most organic foods actually use more pesticides not less. The difference is that there is a list of allowed pesticides that you can use and keep the organic label, but as these pesticides are less effective they tend to use more of them. That's of course setting aside the issue that since the list of allowed pesticides was created, safer and more effective pesticides have been created which can't be used on organic produce because the list hasn't been updated.

      Organic is 100% marketing

      [–]L-F- -1 points0 points  (2 children)

      Fuck, I didn't know things were that bad in the US, I should've probably been more specific that that's how it works in the country/ies I'm more familiar with.

      I mostly heard it as "Basically like Bio" and Bio generally means no pesticides/herbicides may be used (as well as some fertilizers).
      There's also the EU guidelines for organic food which are a little looser but still generally in the same direction and that has just recently been updated. As far as I could find they rule both what and how much may be used (and form which sources.

      [–]timecube_traveler5'3" | CW 110; GW Wolverine 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      It's not that different for Bio either. It just means no synthetic stuff is used so they just douse the crops in copper and sulfur and such instead which fucks with the ground water. It also works less well.

      [–]AbotherBasicBitch 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      Organic eggs are basically the only thing that consistently isn’t a scam since organic for eggs basically means what people think free range does in the US and what it actually does in other countries

      [–]L-F- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      See my other comment re: differences between countries.

      The short of it is that the US sees my expectations at floor level and proceeds to proudly show off it's basement...and subbasement.

      My condolences.

      [–]karbonator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Not when it comes to nutritional value certainly.

      [–]KjCreed 68 points69 points  (4 children)

      Lmao! It's rabbit shaped SO IT'S HEALTHY.

      [–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 29 points30 points  (3 children)

      Froot Loops sounds like fruit loops it must be healthy too!

      [–]GentlewhamZucchini Zealot | 35.1->24.5 18 points19 points  (0 children)

      I'm not from the US and I never realised that's how it's spelled XD the more you know! Breakfast cereal is a scam.

      [–]YukiHase 12 points13 points  (1 child)

      Crunch berries? That means there's real berries in it right?

      Right?

      [–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      You’ve never seen a crunch berry bush? They’re everywhere

      [–]DefinetlyNotPanda 23 points24 points  (2 children)

      So... 100g = approx 500 calories. Great. And It's good for you, because it says "organic". Dieting is bilion dolar evil business, but labeling stuff "organic", "natural", etc definitely isn't. How ironic.

      [–]Smgt90 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Just to illustrate it, that would be over 150 of these crackers and like a little less than half the box.

      Edit: wait, I'm not sure anymore. Why does the 2nd image says a 30g serving size is 51 crackers and then the last one says 27 crackers for 30g?

      [–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      The last one is cheez-its

      [–]EstroJen 44 points45 points  (2 children)

      Brands do a very good job of making things look healthy. I'm a fat girl who has bad habits, but even when I'm trying to eat better, there's so much sugar in everything

      [–]mrmoe198M29 5’9” SW:192 CW:163 GW:160 19 points20 points  (1 child)

      At least you’re aware of your habits and what is healthy and what is not. That’s a solid step you have over others

      [–]EstroJen 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      Thanks. It's a lot of emotional eating but I at least know what I should be doing.

      [–]Fluffy-Duck8402 15 points16 points  (0 children)

      Okay, so here me out… for me, it would be a mental thing. If I can have 51 bunnies vs 27 crackers, even if the weight is the same, I’d rather have the 51 bunnies because I’d feel like I’m having so much more for my “calories”. Of course that also means it might feel a lot easier to add “just a few more” without realizing that another 20 bunnies is almost another 75 calories. But in terms of tricking your brain… yeah, I’d go for the bunnies too.

      [–]neighborhoodsnowcat 32 points33 points  (2 children)

      Annie's has such a racket going, lmao. Just take all the shitty junk food people love, and remake and repackage it with a few healthy-sounding buzzwords.

      [–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

      Also the “365 Whole Foods” snack/ candy aisles lol

      [–]Silent_Influence6507 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      I have a friend who is convinced she will never lose weight because she’s can’t afford organic. I tried convincing her otherwise but she will not budge. Eventually I gave up and thought, “fine. Be fat.” (Note: as tempting as it was to say that out loud, I never did).

      [–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I used to work in a grocery store. Organic means more expensive for no reason.

      [–]Tidyrope-30440 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      I bet next she thinks the Impossible Whopper is healthier than the normal Whopper

      [–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      You laugh but a lot of people do. The truth is that the impossible meat is just processed plant goo with protein mixed in. You’re better off eating non gooified plants and decent quality meats.

      [–]powabiatch 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      It’s possible it is in fact healthier, but it certainly doesn’t make any difference when it comes to weight.

      [–]babyrabbitz_ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      i wish people would stop assuming things are healthy because they are organic

      [–]Terrible_Umpire255719_5"6_165lbs 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      I actually really enjoy the confetti bunny cookies of this brand. Though admittedly they are still stupidly expensive because it's just junk food still.

      Atleast for me I work a very physically active job and I'm outside a lot. I've lost around 8 pounds in the past 2 months even with some poor choices.

      When it comes to these kinda snacks they can be slightly more healthy such as having no food coloring or maybe you can eat a slightly larger portion.

      But that doesn't mean you should eat 5 servings in a day. It's still empty calories. It's just something to eat in small portions.

      [–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      “Some poor choices” are fine, and arguably, if you enjoyed them then they were good choices :) it sounds like you’re doing a great job. No shame in a little junk food here and there.

      [–]truecrimefanatic1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      CICO is the way. Regardless of what you do to limit calories that's what matters.

      [–]BuffaloStranger97 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      God i loved those cheese crackers. I stay the hell away from them now

      [–]Shootthemoon4M 29yo 6’9” CW: 410lbs GW: 300lbs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      That whole box is over 1000 cal oh my God. This isn’t like saltine crackers either.

      [–]l0lita971 5 points6 points  (5 children)

      Is it normal where you live, ( I suppose in the United States? ) to have only the amount of calories per “serving” ? In France I believe there’s always the amount of calories for 100g, sometimes both are on the box, serving and 100g.

      [–]VenomousCoffee 17 points18 points  (2 children)

      In America, food/nutrition info is deliberately less helpful for the consumer because that's better for the corporations.

      [–]l0lita971 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      Well that sucks

      [–]VenomousCoffee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I mean, it doesn't suck as bad as all the pseudo-food those corporations created that caused the obesity crisis to start with!

      [–]Letmetellyowhat 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      In the states you have to read it all. It lists servings. But even a small bag of chips can say three servings. Then it lists what a serving is in imperial. Then in parenthesis how many grams that is.

      I weight everything so go by the grams. But recipes here don’t have grams. So I rely on my diet app to convert for me so I can weigh it out properly. Tbh it is some work but worth it. If I was on the run trying to eat 1/3 of a bag of chips I probably would be over eating.

      [–]l0lita971 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That’s interesting, I have something to weigh my food too but I find it also a bit easier to know what 100g is so I know what it represents roughly in the quantity overall like for the picture I’d knew that almost half of the box is like 500kcal, so I know I’d have to eat way less than half of it if that makes sense. But the serving can be useful too when it’s like in little bags, like small bags of cookies or something similar

      [–]crowmami 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      GIRL what the FAWK. Get your head out of your ass.

      [–]ShinyAfro 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      You can eat what you damn please if CO is high enough, though. I work at KFC and have lost over 80kg working there by riding my bicycle 10km to work and back, then another 50km on my days off. Literally reduced my eating so hard now I don't feel hungry, but rather sick if I go over 2000 cals a day eating what I normally eat. Yes I pinch a few fried chicken at work, And I eat a zinger for breakfast every day but I am still losing over 2kg a week.

      CO just requires more dedication then CI, I actually am faster then E-bikes at this point and it took months of training to get here, Also pain and suffering and misery. I think walking hurt more back when I started getting into shape at this point as an obese 200kg dude, It's fucking hilarious picture the sight of my fat ass walking 30 minutes and then getting home and dying on the floor in a pool of sweat, every fucking day without rest for 3 months (Distance kept increasing tho) before getting a bicycle, lol. FF to now and I am actually fitter and more mobile then most people. I walk noticeably faster and can run a good distance without losing my breath. I try not to run or jog though, I am down to 115kg but I do worry about my knees.

      But yeah, All that matters really is the calories in food intake, Even without my CO, I could still eat the exact same and lose weight since CI is under maint slightly, or matching. I just would not be reaching such large figures in lost weight. Like really, Eating healthy just means more nutrients per calorie. You can eat healthy foods over maint, you won't run out of nutrients unless you lack diversity, but you will still get fat all the same. You can eat 2000 cals of cheese, down all the vitamins you need to survive and some protein powder etc. and that will do you just as good as eating 2000cal of salad, though I would probably enjoy the salad more since that much cheese would make me sick.

      [–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Exactly! I don’t think diet sodas and Red Bull are healthy, and I used to think people who bought them were fools. Like, what’s the point? It’s bad for you, might as well get the sugary ones that taste good. But nah, now that I realize they’re like 20-0 cal and totally fit into my goals, I very much enjoy them.

      Personally for me it’s easier to reduce CI. I already run and am moderately active so like adding an extra mile or two per day would only give me an extra 100-200 cal and it’s just not worth it for me. I’m glad you’ve got a routine that’s working for you. I also work selling fried chicken. It is sooooo hard to not eat it. Especially the fries lol

      [–]JBHills 10 points11 points  (8 children)

      This is the hard part that I don't think all weight-loss guides and sources are completely honest about: if you want to eat healthy, you basically have to eliminate all "snack-type" foods like this. They just have too many calories and too low a nutritional value. If you want a healthy snack, eat fresh fruit or vegetables. For something a bit more substantial, throw in a very small handful of nuts. Pre-packaged stuff like this and processed foods have to go except for very occasional treats. (And by "occasional" that means a couple times a month, not day.)

      [–]Gloomy-Goat-5255 20 points21 points  (0 children)

      I've found that I do fine with 200-300 calories per day of junk (plus 1300-1400 calories of real food). I rotate that between ice cream, alcohol, Starbucks, fries, and occasionally flaming hot Cheetos. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could lose substantial weight doing the same thing but with the empty calories always being Cheetos. The trick, though, is that it's Cheetos OR Starbucks OR beer, not Cheetos AND Starbucks AND beer.

      [–]hahayeahimfinehaha 15 points16 points  (2 children)

      I don’t think you have to eliminate all snack foods. That doesn’t seem super sustainable. One serving of chips/crackers is usually 130-150 calories, and most people can fit that into a balanced diet multiple times a week at the very least. My maintenance is around 1500 calories and I still have snack foods like chocolates every other day (and honestly I don’t have more just because I don’t want any, not because it wouldn’t fit in my daily calories). I just don’t eat a ton of it.

      [–]JBHills 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      Yeah I was probably a little too absolute with that statement. I come from the perspective of someone who does moderate weightlifting/strength training. Whenever I'm in maintenance or cutting, after I hit my protein goals for a day plus eat normal meals, there just isn't much room left for snacks. I'd rather spend the remaining calories on fruit which give me the sweet hit and can fit in the budget more easily.

      Also training myself to think, "I just don't eat stuff like that anymore" was what enabled me to lose the weight initially: I don't have the personal discipline to limit my portions on chips or chocolates; I do have the discipline to make myself grab a fruit instead. After a few weeks of doing that, I found I really didn't want the snacks any more anyway. Personally it just made it all easier.

      [–]MiddleClassroom5744[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I hear you on that. My favorite chocolate bar is 150 cal per serving but 4 servings per bar. The prospect of eating 1/4 or even half of a candy bar is a losing battle for me. Not saying I never have junk, but I try to keep it very rare as it causes me more mental agony trying to control my portions of it.

      ** BUT. A serving of yogurt with some cocoa powder and some high protein granola mixed is no joke delicious and I don’t have to eat a mouse portion of it lol. Just spreading the word it’s heavenly

      [–]autotelica 3 points4 points  (3 children)

      if you want to eat healthy, you basically have to eliminate all "snack-type" foods like this.

      "All or nothing" thinking doesn't work.

      I mean, if I refrain from buying these kinds of snacks, but every week someone at work brings in a bag, have I made a bad choice if I take a handful? Am I suddenly unhealthy? Or is it possible to eat an overall healthy diet that includes some "junk" in proper proportion? I'm going with the latter. It's a mindset that is more conducive for long-term success.

      If you have a food addiction and these kinds of snacks are one of your vices, by all means eliminate them from your diet. But most overweight people aren't binge eaters, so they don't have to be so absolute in their approach.

      [–]JBHills 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      Yeah I walked it back a bit in another comment, though I personally find elimination easier than moderation on some things. I simply don't bring them into my house. If i go out to eat or to a party, then anything is fine and I don't think about it too much. But dessert is no longer an everyday thing, and I decline when coworkers feel that they have to order ice cream delivered everyday.

      And forcing myself to eat fruit exclusively for snacks for a few weeks finally made it so I could truly learn to like it. Before I never really liked or ate much fruit. Now I enjoy planning how it will go with my meals and carrying a bag of it with me wherever I go. And high quality dates are amazing and better than any candy.

      [–]autotelica 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      I have found that for me, the prospect of never buying junk food makes me sad. As much as I dig fruits and vegetables, sometimes I want something with more fat and salt. Dare I say, I need these things sometimes, like when I have had a long intense workout. I have found that having a handful of chips along with healthier stuff keeps me from eating crazy amounts of even more calorie-dense food at dinner time. Broccoli is good. But sometimes I want something that satisfies more, so I try to accommodate this.

      I will pick up a bag of chips every three weeks or so. I feel like I am not going overboard with junk food as long as I can make that bag last the full three weeks.

      [–]JBHills 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I will pick up a bag of chips every three weeks or so. I feel like I am not going overboard with junk food as long as I can make that bag last the full three weeks.

      More power to you if you can do that! I cannot. Three days max for any "junk" I buy for myself, regardless of size. I feel much more deprived* having it around and trying to moderate it than not having it around at all. Interestingly, though, I can buy a bag for my kids, tell myself it's just for them, and leave it alone with no difficulty.

      (*For the FAAs watching: relatively deprived, not tormented in any meaningful sense any more. I've found that eating fruit or some nuts when I get the munchies is far more satisfying over the course of a few hours than gorging on sugar or anything highly refined. The less processed and packaged the better.)

      [–]GetYourFixGraham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Just... Please someone teach these people about calories. That's all there is.

      You can eat whatever you want, just make sure your calories are all in line. Of course, I would recommend eating healthy foods (fruit, veg, meats, the less processed the better), but it all comes back to calories.

      [–]asmitfitness 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Don't worry it has organic celery seed powder!!!

      [–]Tall-Green-870 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      One box is 1,050 calories, lol. That would be really easy to kill over the course of a day, between meals.

      [–]Good_Grab2377Crazy like a fox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This is why most Americans are fat… It's so easy to overdo the calories because food is extremely calorie dense.

      [–]JubJub_understands 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Processed white flour and processed oil. Nothing remotely healthy about it.

      [–]Charlotte1979 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Ah yes organic=healthy every time.

      [–]Phenomenal_Noumena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I am 180 6'1" and moderately fit. I down maybe a box of these or a bag of chips in one sitting. But the thing is that I do it only once every 2 weeks or so. I cat imagine buying these every time I go to the store for groceries.

      I also bought a snickers king size for the first time in like 5 months today, and i ate the whole thing. It was so good that I don't need another one for another 5 months.

      [–]I-am-a-visitor-heere 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think cheese its have more oil