Define "healthy" food...

jofjltncb6

colejkeene wrote: »

show previous quotes

auddii wrote: »

colejkeene wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

This has been coming up a lot lately, so I thought that I would combine it all into one thread so that we can have some fun and dig into this one. A lot of people say "I do not want to eat junk" OR "I only eat healthy food", which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food.

My premise is that there is no "healthy" or "junk" food, there is just food that your body uses for energy, and that context of diet is what matters. Different combinations of foods will result in different results for each individuals diet.

None of this addresses micronutrient requirements and nutrient density.

A diet rich in processed/refined sugars, pre-packaged and prepared foods with large amounts of sodium, sugars and highly saturated fats and low in raw or lightly cooking vegetables, fruits, grains and lean proteins is unhealthy. Especially in the realm of micronutrients.

ndj1979 wrote: »

For the person that is concerned with strictly fast loss, then it may make sense to get more of their calories from less calorie dense foods like vegetables, and then mix in the ocassional ice cream, cookies, etc.

For the person that is trying to maintain weight and has more calories to play with, they may be able to have a daily serving, or more than one serving, of their favorite treat, and consume more calorie dense foods.

For the person that is bulking/adding weight, they may get 25%, or more, of their calories from calorie dense foods, like pizza, cookies, ice cream, etc, and may fill in as many as 500 calories, or more, to hit their goals.

The quality of your calories is as important as the quantity. It seems disingenuous and a little naive to believe otherwise.

You also use the term "occasional" (albeit spelled improperly) but if you're going to break down the definition of the word "healthy" then you have to do the same for "occasional". I have a friend that eats one serving of sweets once every two weeks. I have another that has 2-3 pieces of dark chocolate every night and a "cheat" day at the end of the week. Clearly they have different definitions of "occasional" and by the same measure different definitions of "healthy".

ndj1979 wrote: »

Is any one strategy more healthy than the other? IMO the answer is no. Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream.

So if I get 500 to 600 calories from ice cream and cookies to fill in my diet, does that make me less healthy than the person that is getting 75% of their calories from fish, rice, and vegetables?

At the end of the day there is no "healthy" food and a diet composed of 100% "clean" food is no more healthy then a diet composed of 25% ice cream, cookies, pizza, etc….

so feel free to disagree with me and give me a definition of "healthy"….

"Vegetables are not more inherently healthy than ice cream." <-- possible the dumbest thing I've read in a very long time.

I say again: quality and quantity are not equivalent.

Calcium, iron, Vitamins A, D, K, E, etc. are naturally occurring parts of nutrition in whole, unprocessed foods. You aren't going to find those quality micronutrients in pizza, ice cream, funnel cakes, candy bars, soda, etc. And, even if you do get some micronutrients in the ingredients used to make those foods, you will also get a huge dose of sodium (implicated in high blood pressure), saturated fats (implicated in cardiovascular diseases) and sugar (which has a whole slew of diet related health issues attributed with it).

A bonus: what sort of education or research do you have to assert this position? I'd love to know.

That's going to depend on the context of what the rest of your diet consists of. If I eat 2000 calories a day, and I have already eaten 1800 calories of nutrient dense food and hit my daily values for all my micronutrients, eating more of those aren't going to benefit me. You excrete what you can't absorb; you don't get bonus points for being "extra healthy". In that context, why is it healthier to eat veggies over ice cream?

This is not about eating ice cream and nothing else. It's trying to figure out why moderate amounts of calorie dense foods are demonized and considered "junk" food.

On the other hand, does eating foods with little to no nutrient density do your body any favors?

I'm not saying that I don't have some of these foods once in a while, but I find, personally, that steering clear of what is traditionally called "junk food" I tend to feel better, sleep better, work out better. I don't have sugar highs, I don't suffer from caffeine withdrawals, etc.

I'm down over 100 pounds and it was the reduction and elimination of the "junk foods" that got me there. Anecdotal, but true.

Additionally, the research I've done, working toward my RD, has led me to believe that high calorie, low nutrient dense foods have an overall negative effect on health and wellness.

You lost over 100 pounds because you ate at a caloric deficit over a sufficient period of time. How you arrived at that deficit may have been by eliminating "junk foods", but you didn't lose the weight because of an absence of "junk foods".

(Okay, now back to trying to catch up...)

yopeeps025

ndj1979 wrote: »

show previous quotes

cwolfman13 wrote: »

The problem is that health and nutrition cannot be considered or discussed in a vacuum...context and dosage are incredibly important to the discussion. As individual food items are concerned, I do think there are obviously "healthier" choices and lesser choices and I do think that getting overall proper nutrition is very important to one's overall health...but I also think that some Doritos can easily fit into an overall balanced and overwhelmingly "healthful" diet without consequence.

That to me seems to be where people get so hung up...it's like they think if they have a soda that somehow negates the 6-8 servings of vegetables they had earlier or something. Context and dosage, context and dosage....

I am with you wolf man..

like I pointed out in my original OP ..if I hit my calorie/micro/macro goal for the day but within that day I had about 400-500 calories of ice cream cookies, etc, does that mean it was unhealthy?? No, it just means that I used those foods to round out my day ...

ice cream has some micro nutrients. Cookies umm I have to see the labels.

jofjltncb6

colejkeene wrote: »

I suddenly remember why I quit posting on the MFP forums, lol.

Because of so many people using facts and logic, right?

I can see how some would find that annoying.

Serah87

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Apologies for the copy pasta:

Eric Helms-

The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

This!! ^^^

BigT555

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

show previous quotes

colejkeene wrote: »

I suddenly remember why I quit posting on the MFP forums, lol.

Because of so many people using facts and logic, right?

I can see how some would find that annoying.

it probably has something to do with you replying to posts that are hours long and asking questions that have been answered.

do you talk just to hear your own voice?

chivalryder

ndj1979 wrote: »

show previous quotes

chivalryder wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

for the record I am a male…

please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?

No. An empty calorie is where you eat or drink a substance that has little to no nutritional value on a micronutrient level.

Take 12 fl oz of Cola vs freshly squeezed Orange Juice for example. The orange juice contains 41mg of calcium, 0.74 mg of iron, 41mg of magnesium, 63mg of phosphorus, 744mg of potassium, 4mg of sodium, 0.19mg of zinc, 186mg of Vitamin C, 0.335mg of Thiamin, 0.112mg of Riboflavin, 1.488mg of Niacin, 0.149mg of Vitamin B-6, 112 ug of Folate, 37ug of Vitamin A, RAE, 744IU of Vitamin A, IU, 0.15mg of Vitamin E, and 0.4 ug of Vitamin K. That's all in 328 total calories.

The Cola, on the other hand, contains 7 mg of Calcium, 0.07 mg of Iron, 41 mg of Phosphorus, 11mg of Potassium, 15mg of Sodium, 0.04 mg of Zinc, and absolutely nothing else. From 12 fl oz, that is basically nothing, for 152 calories. These are called empty calories. Calories you consume that have minimal nutritional significance, beyond the macro level.

and OP was never seen again

I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.

Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time

no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...

you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative terms

2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day

that is exactly my point..

there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…

if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...

your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet

well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?

The issue is that the OP asked about healthy foods yet you are talking about a healthy diet. I get your point, but you are really mixing topics.

This.

I am the OP and I said define healthy, but I also said that you have to take into consideration context of overall diet...

at least, I am pretty sure that is what I said..

You did say that, and I replied to your recent post about it. I thin my post was overlooked, so I'll quote what I said:

"If you go back to my original post, defining what an "empty calorie" is, and go to the first post I made after that, you will see I made two clear statements.

The first one, where the context of diet was NOT considered, therefore claiming that OJ is indeed healthier than Cola.

The second on where the context of diet WAS considered, therefore claiming that, if the diet as a whole contains plenty of what would be considered "healthy" food, if the diet was not taken into account, then the cola would be a healthy food to eat, should you need or desire the sugar contained within the beverage. "

Need2Exerc1se

rsclause wrote: »

Define "Healthy food"? A little off topic but this makes me think of the quote "define pornography" with the answer being "I know it when i see it". I think the same can generally be said about food without getting too technical about it.

Truth

But where is the fun?

chivalryder

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

show previous quotes

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

I don't know either.

Please enlighten me/us.

I did. You'll have to find my post on it, but it's in here.

goddessofawesome

BayBanana wrote: »

show previous quotes

eric_sg61 wrote: »

Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.

But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.

The problem when this is discussed here is that you will now get the "EVERYTHING HAS CHEMICALS!" people who proceed to show you what, exactly is in a blueberry and how "you can't pronounce it so it's bad for you!" It's nit-picky really when you think about it. I personally stay away from things like Red Dye #5, BPA, rBGH/rBST and the like but that's just me and it in no way makes me a "food hypochondriac".

SuggaD

To each their own. For me, I prefer to prepare most of my food or get it from restaurants that use fresh(er) ingredients. I strive for a balanced diet of complex carbs, fruits and vegetables, low fat dairy, healthy fats, lean proteins. I try to limit refined sugars and sodium. With that said, I'm not a fanatic. If I want some chips, I'm going to have some chips. Sometimes I make it at home. Other times I will go buy a bag of kettle chips or plaintain chips. If I want a burger, I may make a turkey burger at home or go get one at Mooyah. If I want sweets, I bake or I go get some frozen yogurt at the frozen yogurt shop. Big picture, if I eat well, I feel great. If I don't eat well, I feel crappy and don't reach my performance goals running, swimming, cycling, lifting, etc.

silentKayak

The problem is that people say "healthy" when they mean "thin".

So yes, food with more micronutrients (e.g. calcium, vitamin C) is more healthy than food with fewer nutrients. Food without artery-clogging saturated and transfat is more healthy than food with those fats. For digestive health, you need food with fiber. For muscle building, you need food with all the macronutrients (especially protein) and also with all the amino acids. Food without toxins (e.g. arsenic in brown rice, mercury in tuna, pesticides in conventional strawberries) is more healthy than food with toxins. Rarer meat causes cancer less than charred meat. I don't think any of that is controversial.

But in terms of your weight, you could eat 100 calories of anything and it would count the same. But that doesn't make it healthy or unhealthy. It just defines how much energy is in it.

yopeeps025

chivalryder wrote: »

show previous quotes

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

I don't know either.

Please enlighten me/us.

I did. You'll have to find my post on it, but it's in here.

Would you call pizza empty calories?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

BigT555

Serah87 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Apologies for the copy pasta:

Eric Helms-

The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

This!! ^^^

the only problem with this is interpretation. people use this as an excuse to eat a bowl of ice cream everyday (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that) when they have deficiencies in other areas, because MA ACE CREME! how much is too much is what it comes down to, and no one really knows, so why not minimize the stuff that has less of a micro profile as much as possible?

ndj1979

yopeeps025 wrote: »

show previous quotes

ndj1979 wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

The problem is that health and nutrition cannot be considered or discussed in a vacuum...context and dosage are incredibly important to the discussion. As individual food items are concerned, I do think there are obviously "healthier" choices and lesser choices and I do think that getting overall proper nutrition is very important to one's overall health...but I also think that some Doritos can easily fit into an overall balanced and overwhelmingly "healthful" diet without consequence.

That to me seems to be where people get so hung up...it's like they think if they have a soda that somehow negates the 6-8 servings of vegetables they had earlier or something. Context and dosage, context and dosage....

I am with you wolf man..

like I pointed out in my original OP ..if I hit my calorie/micro/macro goal for the day but within that day I had about 400-500 calories of ice cream cookies, etc, does that mean it was unhealthy?? No, it just means that I used those foods to round out my day ...

ice cream has some micro nutrients. Cookies umm I have to see the labels.

but if you already hit the micros what difference does it make???

jofjltncb6

chivalryder wrote: »

show previous quotes

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

for the record I am a male…

please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?

No. An empty calorie is where you eat or drink a substance that has little to no nutritional value on a micronutrient level.

Take 12 fl oz of Cola vs freshly squeezed Orange Juice for example. The orange juice contains 41mg of calcium, 0.74 mg of iron, 41mg of magnesium, 63mg of phosphorus, 744mg of potassium, 4mg of sodium, 0.19mg of zinc, 186mg of Vitamin C, 0.335mg of Thiamin, 0.112mg of Riboflavin, 1.488mg of Niacin, 0.149mg of Vitamin B-6, 112 ug of Folate, 37ug of Vitamin A, RAE, 744IU of Vitamin A, IU, 0.15mg of Vitamin E, and 0.4 ug of Vitamin K. That's all in 328 total calories.

The Cola, on the other hand, contains 7 mg of Calcium, 0.07 mg of Iron, 41 mg of Phosphorus, 11mg of Potassium, 15mg of Sodium, 0.04 mg of Zinc, and absolutely nothing else. From 12 fl oz, that is basically nothing, for 152 calories. These are called empty calories. Calories you consume that have minimal nutritional significance, beyond the macro level.

and OP was never seen again

unfortunately, OP has a job that requires work and stuff …

trying to read through the replies …

I agree with what you are saying..however, the coke is not "empty" you still get a benefit from the calories contained within, yes?

Healthy food and junk food have nothing to do with the calories or even the macro nutrients. It is all about micro nutrients only.

With the soda since it has no micro nutrients is consider junk food. Liquid candy was what it was called when I was a kid.

iron and zinc is not a micro??

what about potassium?

0.07mg of iron, 0.04mg of zinc and 11mg of potassium is a negligible amount of each substance and your body wouldn't even notice you drank this much of each.

The same amount of orange juice contains 10x as much iron, 4.75x as much zinc, and over 67x as much potassium as the cola. If you really think that's something worth arguing over, then you're arguing for the sake or arguing.

You should be trying to consume 3500mg of potassium or more. 11mg from 150 calories is not going to have an impact on your overall consumption.

If I'm a 20 miles into a race and am offered my choice of flat Coke, freshly-squeezed OJ, or a bowl of broccoli, I think I'll go with the Coke.


(That said, I stopped leisurely drinking soda about 10 years ago...which I suppose makes me a traitor to my cause.)

7 pages to go...

chivalryder

ndj1979 wrote: »

show previous quotes

tiffaniedemayo wrote: »

I have to agree with "Goldthistime": I define healthy food as nutrient dense foods, with limited amounts of salt, sugar and fat. Meaning vegetables, lean meats, fruits and whole grains. I define junk as nutrient sparse food with lots of salt sugar or fat. Meaning chips, cheezies, candy, donuts, onion rings etc.

ok - so here is the question ...if you had a diet containing both and hit your goals does that mean that buy eating chips, cheezies, or whatever combination thereof then makes your day "unhealthy"?

No, for 99.9% of the population, it doesn't matter. For the 0.1% of the population (or less) that is seriously training to compete at an elite level of athletic competition, then yes, it would matter.

I don't believe anyone here fits into the latter.

chivalryder

yopeeps025 wrote: »

show previous quotes

chivalryder wrote: »

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

I don't know either.

Please enlighten me/us.

I did. You'll have to find my post on it, but it's in here.

Would you call pizza empty calories?

No.

ndj1979

MrM27 wrote: »

Seriously???? 10 pages? I looked at this 2 hours ago and now it's 10 pages? I don't even want cliffs because it's obvious. Someone please just direct me to the page that has the most butt hurt so I can begin there.

ummm not sure because I have been in out and all day ...

I think page four ....

ndj1979

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

show previous quotes

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

for the record I am a male…

please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?

No. An empty calorie is where you eat or drink a substance that has little to no nutritional value on a micronutrient level.

Take 12 fl oz of Cola vs freshly squeezed Orange Juice for example. The orange juice contains 41mg of calcium, 0.74 mg of iron, 41mg of magnesium, 63mg of phosphorus, 744mg of potassium, 4mg of sodium, 0.19mg of zinc, 186mg of Vitamin C, 0.335mg of Thiamin, 0.112mg of Riboflavin, 1.488mg of Niacin, 0.149mg of Vitamin B-6, 112 ug of Folate, 37ug of Vitamin A, RAE, 744IU of Vitamin A, IU, 0.15mg of Vitamin E, and 0.4 ug of Vitamin K. That's all in 328 total calories.

The Cola, on the other hand, contains 7 mg of Calcium, 0.07 mg of Iron, 41 mg of Phosphorus, 11mg of Potassium, 15mg of Sodium, 0.04 mg of Zinc, and absolutely nothing else. From 12 fl oz, that is basically nothing, for 152 calories. These are called empty calories. Calories you consume that have minimal nutritional significance, beyond the macro level.

and OP was never seen again

unfortunately, OP has a job that requires work and stuff …

trying to read through the replies …

I agree with what you are saying..however, the coke is not "empty" you still get a benefit from the calories contained within, yes?

Healthy food and junk food have nothing to do with the calories or even the macro nutrients. It is all about micro nutrients only.

With the soda since it has no micro nutrients is consider junk food. Liquid candy was what it was called when I was a kid.

iron and zinc is not a micro??

what about potassium?

0.07mg of iron, 0.04mg of zinc and 11mg of potassium is a negligible amount of each substance and your body wouldn't even notice you drank this much of each.

The same amount of orange juice contains 10x as much iron, 4.75x as much zinc, and over 67x as much potassium as the cola. If you really think that's something worth arguing over, then you're arguing for the sake or arguing.

You should be trying to consume 3500mg of potassium or more. 11mg from 150 calories is not going to have an impact on your overall consumption.

If I'm a 20 miles into a race and am offered my choice of flat Coke, freshly-squeezed OJ, or a bowl of broccoli, I think I'll go with the Coke.


(That said, I stopped leisurely drinking soda about 10 years ago...which I suppose makes me a traitor to my cause.)

7 pages to go...

you are almost there bro ..

want a coke????

Need2Exerc1se

ndj1979 wrote: »

show previous quotes

chivalryder wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

for the record I am a male…

please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?

No. An empty calorie is where you eat or drink a substance that has little to no nutritional value on a micronutrient level.

Take 12 fl oz of Cola vs freshly squeezed Orange Juice for example. The orange juice contains 41mg of calcium, 0.74 mg of iron, 41mg of magnesium, 63mg of phosphorus, 744mg of potassium, 4mg of sodium, 0.19mg of zinc, 186mg of Vitamin C, 0.335mg of Thiamin, 0.112mg of Riboflavin, 1.488mg of Niacin, 0.149mg of Vitamin B-6, 112 ug of Folate, 37ug of Vitamin A, RAE, 744IU of Vitamin A, IU, 0.15mg of Vitamin E, and 0.4 ug of Vitamin K. That's all in 328 total calories.

The Cola, on the other hand, contains 7 mg of Calcium, 0.07 mg of Iron, 41 mg of Phosphorus, 11mg of Potassium, 15mg of Sodium, 0.04 mg of Zinc, and absolutely nothing else. From 12 fl oz, that is basically nothing, for 152 calories. These are called empty calories. Calories you consume that have minimal nutritional significance, beyond the macro level.

and OP was never seen again

I suppose I should add that what I just explained there is a clear cut example of what is a "healthy" food and what is not a "healthy" food.

Now, put that together into a 'diet' and you're not longer talking about what a singular healthy food is. You're talking about a diet. You can eat whatever the heck you want, but what you eat can, and will make a different physiologically. Mentally, if you need to eat the donut, then eat the freaking donut because it would be unhealthy to completely ignore your cravings all the time

no, they are just foods with different calorie content, and micro breakdowns...

you seem to understand the premise but are stuck on the fact that there is no hard definition of healthy, or clean, or even an empty calorie. these are all relative terms

2 direct comparisons in front of you showing calorie vs micro count, you should be able to clearly state which is better for you. and short of some minor mental aspect that you could consider, the OJ wipes the table over coke any day

that is exactly my point..

there is just food that your body uses for energy ..combine them in certain ways, for certain goals…

if someone wants to drink a cola to get in their calories for the day then so be it…does not mean that one is better than another...

your still missing the micronutrient point. yes, if you have all micros in for a day then it makes no difference but how often does that ever happen without extreme planning and diligence to an very specific diet

well again, context of diet has to be considered? If you have hit micros and drink the coke then what is the issue?

The issue is that the OP asked about healthy foods yet you are talking about a healthy diet. I get your point, but you are really mixing topics.

This.

I am the OP and I said define healthy, but I also said that you have to take into consideration context of overall diet...

at least, I am pretty sure that is what I said..

I meant 'original post' more than 'original poster'. The subject is "Define 'healthy' food". In the original post it says "which then naturally sparks the question what is "healthy" food." then you go on to tell us your opinion.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

KombuchaCat

For me it means nutrient dense whole and unprocessed.

EvgeniZyntx

goddessofawesome wrote: »

show previous quotes

BayBanana wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

Not sure who is worse or more annoying the hysterical "sugar is the devil" crowd or the "ermagerd processed, chemicalz, toxins" in the food hypochondriacs.

But there are ingredients we use in the U.S. that are banned in other countries because they've been proven harmful. Does it really make someone a hypochondriac to say 'I don't want to eat that' or 'that is an unhealthy food' simply because it contains known carcinogens, or other toxic chemicals (or ermagerd chemicalz). I don't think it's bad to have a healthy fear of unnatural things in food.

The problem when this is discussed here is that you will now get the "EVERYTHING HAS CHEMICALS!" people who proceed to show you what, exactly is in a blueberry and how "you can't pronounce it so it's bad for you!" It's nit-picky really when you think about it. I personally stay away from things like Red Dye #5, BPA, rBGH/rBST and the like but that's just me and it in no way makes me a "food hypochondriac".

How is Red Dye #5 bad for you?
What is it?

ndj1979

BigT555 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Serah87 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Apologies for the copy pasta:

Eric Helms-

The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

This!! ^^^

the only problem with this is interpretation. people use this as an excuse to eat a bowl of ice cream everyday (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that) when they have deficiencies in other areas, because MA ACE CREME! how much is too much is what it comes down to, and no one really knows, so why not minimize the stuff that has less of a micro profile as much as possible?

people use all kind of things as en excuse...that does not negate what the article is saying..

chivalryder

jofjltncb6 wrote: »

show previous quotes

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

BigT555 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

yopeeps025 wrote: »

By definition of my nutrition book since I took a class at my college, healthy foods have more micro nutrients than the so call junk food "empty calories", foods with no micro nutrients, was what it was called in the book.

OK - so if I hit my macros/micors and calorie goals for the day, but I got 500-600 calories from ice cream and cookies is that then not healthy? Because empty calories??? (whatever those are)

This line alone shows just how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

Please feel free to enlighten us.

The point trying to be made is that you can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you eat a majority of nutrient dense food (or at least sufficient amounts), and fill the rest with pizza, chocolate, ice cream, or whatever, how is that bad.

*And keep in mind that this thread is being argued by people who eat a hell of a lot more than 1200 calories a day. It's hard to fit in treats when you only eat a little every day. When your goal is 2000 calories or even 3500 calories, you can easily work in more calorie dense food and still get proper nutrition.

"Empty calories (whatever that is)" was the line I was going at.

The credibility of the original post was lost when the OP admitted she doesn't know what an empty calorie is.

for the record I am a male…

please feel free to explain what an empty calorie is..? I assume a calorie with zero units of energy…?

No. An empty calorie is where you eat or drink a substance that has little to no nutritional value on a micronutrient level.

Take 12 fl oz of Cola vs freshly squeezed Orange Juice for example. The orange juice contains 41mg of calcium, 0.74 mg of iron, 41mg of magnesium, 63mg of phosphorus, 744mg of potassium, 4mg of sodium, 0.19mg of zinc, 186mg of Vitamin C, 0.335mg of Thiamin, 0.112mg of Riboflavin, 1.488mg of Niacin, 0.149mg of Vitamin B-6, 112 ug of Folate, 37ug of Vitamin A, RAE, 744IU of Vitamin A, IU, 0.15mg of Vitamin E, and 0.4 ug of Vitamin K. That's all in 328 total calories.

The Cola, on the other hand, contains 7 mg of Calcium, 0.07 mg of Iron, 41 mg of Phosphorus, 11mg of Potassium, 15mg of Sodium, 0.04 mg of Zinc, and absolutely nothing else. From 12 fl oz, that is basically nothing, for 152 calories. These are called empty calories. Calories you consume that have minimal nutritional significance, beyond the macro level.

and OP was never seen again

unfortunately, OP has a job that requires work and stuff …

trying to read through the replies …

I agree with what you are saying..however, the coke is not "empty" you still get a benefit from the calories contained within, yes?

Healthy food and junk food have nothing to do with the calories or even the macro nutrients. It is all about micro nutrients only.

With the soda since it has no micro nutrients is consider junk food. Liquid candy was what it was called when I was a kid.

iron and zinc is not a micro??

what about potassium?

0.07mg of iron, 0.04mg of zinc and 11mg of potassium is a negligible amount of each substance and your body wouldn't even notice you drank this much of each.

The same amount of orange juice contains 10x as much iron, 4.75x as much zinc, and over 67x as much potassium as the cola. If you really think that's something worth arguing over, then you're arguing for the sake or arguing.

You should be trying to consume 3500mg of potassium or more. 11mg from 150 calories is not going to have an impact on your overall consumption.

If I'm a 20 miles into a race and am offered my choice of flat Coke, freshly-squeezed OJ, or a bowl of broccoli, I think I'll go with the Coke.


(That said, I stopped leisurely drinking soda about 10 years ago...which I suppose makes me a traitor to my cause.)

7 pages to go...

That's your choice. I'd go for the OJ. Why? Simple: Potassium. You need it in endurance sports. Lots of it. Also, there are more calories per fl oz. Something else you need.

That being said, when you're 20 miles into a race, what you will want to eat or drink will be purely personal preference. If someone offered me a bowl of broccoli, I'd probably tell that person where to get off.

ndj1979

Serah87 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Apologies for the copy pasta:

Eric Helms-

The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

This!! ^^^

x 2

BigT555

ndj1979 wrote: »

show previous quotes

BigT555 wrote: »

Serah87 wrote: »

Sarauk2sf wrote: »

http://dynamicduotraining.com/ask-the-experts-round-table-discussions/15-nutrition-myths-you-want-to-knowallow-the-experts-to-tell/

Apologies for the copy pasta:

Eric Helms-

The Myth of “Good” and “Bad” Foods

I think one of the most pervasive, and possibly detrimental mind sets is that of seeing foods as either “good” or “bad”. This is a rather seductive way of looking at foods because it is simplistic. Look at a food, identify it as friend or foe, and then go with the “good” option not the “bad” option and you’ll be healthy, fit, lean and sexy! It’s that easy! But of course, that’s not the case.

One of the problems with this mindset is that it fits perfectly into the behavioral paradigm that leads to obesity in the first place; the all or nothing mindset. One thing I find to be a commonality among folks who struggle with weight gain and permanent weight loss, is that they lose the middle ground. They bounce between being “on the diet” and falling off the band wagon and lapsing into cycles of overeating. We have no problem losing weight, we have trouble keeping the weight off. We crash diet and lose 20-30lbs in a few months, and then it all comes back on when we can’t maintain the crash diet approach.
All or nothing Black and white mindsets ignore the concepts of magnitude and frequency which are all important when it comes to long term change. Of course 1g of sugar eaten every 2 weeks will not have the same effect as 100g of sugar eaten daily, but we love to label sugar as “bad”. Even water consumed in massive excess can lead to hyponatremia and death. Sugar is not good or bad, and neither is water, they just are what they are and without attention to magnitude or frequency, labels like “good” or “bad” are misleading.

We tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to nutrition. Originally, we believed fat was the singular cause of the obesity epidemic. When the low fat craze had no impact on preventing the worsening of the obesity epidemic, we went the way of the low carb craze, and folks started consuming fat with abandon. When this didn’t turn the trend of waist expansion around, we decided that it’s not just fat or carbs, the causes are specific types of carbs and fat; specifically sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans fat are the culprits!

The need to blame singular nutrients highlights the all or nothing, black or white attitude that is in and of itself one of the roots of unhealthy eating behavior and consequently obesity. Again, it comes down to seeking balance. The concept of balance in nutrition is inclusive of the concepts of magnitude and frequency that are needed for long term lifestyle change. Balance recognizes that it is not the small piece of chocolate that you had that wasn’t on your diet plan that was the problem, it was the carton of ice cream you had afterward!

The meal plan foods are “good”, and a piece of chocolate is “bad” and once you’d crossed over from “good” to “bad”, you said: “Screw it! I already blew it, I might as well just have cookie dough ice cream until I puke!” That is the all too common result of the all or nothing mindset in action. On the other hand, a balanced approach realizes that a small piece of chocolate is only ~100 calories, and will make a minuscule difference in terms of weight loss over time. In fact, a balanced meal plan might even allow for a daily range of calories, so that the following day could be reduced by 100 calories. Even more shockingly, a balanced meal plan might even include a piece of chocolate (blasphemy I know)!

There are truly VERY few foods that are actively bad for you. Most of the foods that we identify as “bad”, are simply low or devoid of micro-nutrients, minerals, fiber and other things like phytochemicals and protein that can be beneficial for you. These foods only become a problem when they occur frequently and with enough magnitude (frequency and magnitude!) to replace a significant enough portion of your diet that you become deficient in beneficial nutrients.

Once our nutrient needs are met, we don’t get extra credit for eating more nutritious food! It’s not as though we have a health food critic living in our esophagus that has a control box that he switches from “get leaner and healthier” to “get fatter and unhealthier” every time he spots “good” or “bad” food. Thus, a healthy diet should be inclusionary vs. exclusionary; focused around including healthy foods, not excluding “unhealthy” foods. Meet your nutrient needs, and feel free to eat things that you may have traditionally seen as “bad” in moderation; so that you are still meeting your allotted caloric intake for your weight loss goals. Don’t make the mistake of looking at foods as “good” or “bad!” Good diets can include “bad” foods and bad diets can include “good” foods. Don’t get too caught up with what you have for lunch, because it is not a singular choice that will determine the success of your health and fitness goals, it is the balanced lifestyle you commit to long term!

This!! ^^^

the only problem with this is interpretation. people use this as an excuse to eat a bowl of ice cream everyday (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that) when they have deficiencies in other areas, because MA ACE CREME! how much is too much is what it comes down to, and no one really knows, so why not minimize the stuff that has less of a micro profile as much as possible?

people use all kind of things as en excuse...that does not negate what the article is saying..

doesnt negate what im saying either

jofjltncb6

keola64 wrote: »

LOL I've worked hard to get in the physical condition I'm in so no need to preach to me lol, and OBVIOUSLY THE MORE YOU EAT HEALTHY AND THE MORE YOU EXERCISE THE HEALTHIER YOU WILL BE. That's all I have to say! interpret it however you want.

So you believe in extra credit for excess nutrition?

Got it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.