Define "healthy" food...
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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 termschivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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...
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.
yes, and I clearly said in my first post that context of diet matters....0 -
What making it at home you mean?? Because you know whats going into it!
Yeast, azodicarbonamide, dough conditioner, gluten, bleach and many other things i can not even pronounce!! Different matter if your making it at home but..................Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Lasmartchika wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Yeah these are two topics all mushed into one... But I'll bite.
1)
Healthy foods: Meats, vegetables, fruits, breads, nuts, dairy.
Junk food: Chips, candy, soda, cookies, donuts, etc.
2)
Now, are they bad? NO. Will I stop eating them? NO. Do I make it fit into my day? HELL YEAH.
That is all. :drinker:
Bread is not healthy in terms of ingredients
How so?
why would it matter?
Doesn't the ingredients label tell us that for store brought breads?0 -
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
no, but the article is still spot on.0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
it probably has something to do with you replying to posts that are hours long and asking questions that have been answered.jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
do you talk just to hear your own voice?
Do you even understand how forum discussions work?0 -
yopeeps025 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???
I would be surprised if people really hit all there micro nutrients alot. If you did and you still had calories to spare I guess why not eat something with little to no nutrients in it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome 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?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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????
I cheated and jumped to the last page. Now going back to the three pages yet unread. Was supposed to go have lunch 30 minutes ago. Curse you for creating this thread!0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
it probably has something to do with you replying to posts that are hours long and asking questions that have been answered.jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.
do you talk just to hear your own voice?
Do you even understand how forum discussions work?
yea its usually a back and forth discussion. your commenting on things that this thread has moved passed, i.e. derailing the discussion0 -
ABSTRACT
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that the total diet or overall
pattern of food eaten is the most important focus of healthy eating. All foods can fit
within this pattern if consumed in moderation with appropriate portion size and combined
with physical activity. The Academy strives to communicate healthy eating messages
that emphasize a balance of food and beverages within energy needs, rather than
any one food or meal. Public policies and dietary patterns that support the total diet
approach include the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, DASH (Dietary Approaches
to Stop Hypertension) Diet, MyPlate, Let’s Move, Nutrition Facts labels, Healthy People
2020, and the Dietary Reference Intakes. In contrast to the total diet approach, classification
of specific foods as good or bad is overly simplistic and can foster unhealthy eating
behaviors. Alternative approaches are necessary in some situations. Eating practices are
dynamic and influenced by many factors, including taste and food preferences, weight
concerns, physiology, time and convenience, environment, abundance of foods, economics,
media/marketing, perceived product safety, culture, and attitudes/beliefs. To
increase the effectiveness of nutrition education in promoting sensible food choices,
skilled food and nutrition practitioners utilize appropriate behavioral theory and evidence-
based strategies. Focusing on variety, moderation, and proportionality in the
context of a healthy lifestyle, rather than targeting specific nutrients or foods, can help
reduce consumer confusion and prevent unnecessary reliance on supplements. Proactive,
empowering, and practical messages that emphasize the total diet approach promote
positive lifestyle changes.
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013;113:307-317.
Just a snippet to support the diet end of it and
All-Good or All-Bad Foods?
When too much emphasis is given to a
single food or food component, confusion
and controversy can hinder, rather
than facilitate, consumers in adopting
healthy dietary patterns. For example,
increased risks for cardiovascular disease
in early animal studies led to standard
dietary guidance to restrict saturated
fats (implying that red meats and
butter are bad foods).1,27 But more recent
evidence of a direct causal link is
more ambiguous. In 2010, a meta-analysis
of prospective epidemiological
studies (N347,747) concluded that
there was not consistent evidence that
saturated fat increased the risk of cardiovascular
or coronary heart disease.
28 Prior investigations that reported
such associations might have
been influenced by macronutrients
that were substituted for saturated fat
or variance in the type of fatty acids
within foods. This topic remains highly
controversial and it highlights the importance
of stressing the total diet over
time, rather than giving too much emphasis
to specific food components.
The increased risks for cardiovascular
disease associated with ingestion of
trans fats that are formed during processing
of certain foods might lead to
the classification of all trans fat as “bad.”
However, a type of trans fat that occurs
naturally from ruminant animal
sources (dairy and meat), conjugated linoleic
acid, has beneficial effects on
metabolic function and physiological
outcomes. In contrast to the atherogenic
nature of synthetic forms of trans
fat formed during partial hydrogenation
of vegetable oils, conjugated linoleic
acid formed during bacterial biohydrogenation
in the rumen can have
beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, immune response, energy
distribution, and bone health.29 To
avoid this confusion, the US Food and
Drug Administration has excluded naturally
occurring trans fat, which is in a
conjugated system, from its definition
of trans fat for nutritional labeling.30
Eggs and soy are other foods that can
be difficult to classify. Egg whites are
low in cholesterol and high in protein,
yet they are so low in zinc that they can
induce a zinc deficiency when used as a
primary or sole source of protein.31
Similarly, soybeans have health-promoting
properties, but also contain
phytates, which diminish absorption of
zinc and iron.32 Thus, foods like egg
white and soy cannot be classified as
completely good or bad, but rather
their value is more appropriately determined
within the context of the total
diet. With a plethora of food items in
the average supermarket and an infinite
array of recipe combinations, the
futility of attempting to sort all food
items into dichotomous categories becomes
evident, leading to confusion
and frustration. Thus, the total diet approach,
with its emphasis on long-term
eating habits and a contextual approach
that incorporates nutrient-rich
foods, provides more useful information
to guide long-term food choices.
There is no good or bad food because you cannot take food out of the context of a diet and when you do you can never get an idea of how it will effect a person.
I don't usually chime in on conversations but when you work in a RD office you need to use some facts.
So lets stop focusing on one food or the other and start eating well all around
0 -
Also, am hoping for more forum and nutrition lessons from grey avi's with locked down food diaries.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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 termschivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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...
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.
yes, and I clearly said in my first post that context of diet matters....
And some disagree. Context matters when discussing a healthy diet. For many 'healthy food' implies a discussion of individual foods, not diet.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome 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?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
An apple contains arsenic - it is a know carcinogen - are you telling me an apple is bad?0 -
chivalryder wrote: »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.
No one?yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 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???
I would be surprised if people really hit all there micro nutrients alot. If you did and you still had calories to spare I guess why not eat something with little to no nutrients in it.
Ummm multi vitamin?
Lets not go there, please. Multi-Vitamins are recently controversial on how effective they are, compared to actual food. They also don't supply you will all the micro nutrients you need. They're designed to supplement a well balanced diet, not to fix it.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 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???
I would be surprised if people really hit all there micro nutrients alot. If you did and you still had calories to spare I guess why not eat something with little to no nutrients in it.
Ummm multi vitamin?
water soluble vitamins in multi vitamins. Some people might being paying for expensive urine. Those one a day tablets don't really do much.
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome 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?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
It does? Please give me a reference for that. I certainly can't find it.
What does this have to do with #3?
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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 termschivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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...
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.
actually, I was pretty clear in my original post that context of diet has to be considered...0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome 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?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
An apple contains arsenic - it is a know carcinogen - are you telling me an apple is bad?
Since I don't eat apple seeds and one would have to consume them in such a large quantity to actually die from it I'm not too concerned about apples. Since dyes are in pretty much everything packaged I'm more concerned about that.
0 -
Two pages left...
...and I still don't know if we get extra credit for exceeding any of our micronutrient requirements.0 -
oh did you go to my profile to try and find dirt on me? exactly why i locked it up bud. try harderjofjltncb6 wrote: »Also, am hoping for more forum and nutrition lessons from grey avi's with locked down food diaries.0 -
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.
This is not sarcasm or whatever you want to call it but whI have ingredients is it you're speaking of. That's a real question. Don't worry I still have plenty of time to be sarcastic and condescending in other posts. But not this one. So please tell me which toxic chemicals those are.
BVO is linked to growth defects and hearing loss and is in a lot of citrus flavored soda. That's the first that comes to mind. I would consider that to be toxic.
I realize there are 'toxic' substances in all food. Even natural food, even water. But there are some that I personally would consider more dangerous than others. I still don't think that avoiding something even the FDA (which I have very little faith in) claims can be hazardous, makes me a hypochondriac.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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 termschivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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...
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.
actually, I was pretty clear in my original post that context of diet has to be considered...
You also said at the end define healthy and the title says define healthy food. Which is what many are doing .
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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????
I cheated and jumped to the last page. Now going back to the three pages yet unread. Was supposed to go have lunch 30 minutes ago. Curse you for creating this thread!
well I must admit, I thought it would be controversial but I did not think it would explode into a level ten dumpster fire by page five...0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Two pages left...
...and I still don't know if we get extra credit for exceeding any of our micronutrient requirements.
Water soluble micro nutrients no.
For fat soluble micro nutrients it can become dangerous.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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 termschivalryder wrote: »
and OP was never seen againchivalryder wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »chivalryder 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.
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...
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.
actually, I was pretty clear in my original post that context of diet has to be considered...
My apologies for not realizing that throughout this discussion. The diet vs food thing got thrown around a lot before I really jumped into this thread.0 -
I would say how I define healthy food is somewhat complex. On a basic level, I define healthy foods as those that provide notable amounts of macro and micronutrients. Now, even though something like broccoli is not high in macronutrients, because of its micronutrient density I would still consider it healthy. Likewise, I would consider lean meats to be healthy in general. However, a lot of foods that are high in macronutrients but low in micronutrients I would not consider to be very healthy.
On a deeper level, I'm with a few of the posters here that have also defined healthy vs unhealthy in terms of the ingredients in the food. In most cases, I would not consider something to be healthy if it is loaded with lots of artificial sweeteners and other non-natural ingredients. Most of my diet from day to day is free of foods packed with this stuff. But if I'm at a party or some other place where refreshments are served that include these foods, I often will eat some. Aside from simply giving me calories, I still consider foods like commercial doughnuts unhealthy, although I sure do like the taste!
Another thing: homemade vs commercial. I eat pizza, but I consider most of the pizza I eat healthy. Why? Because the dough has been homemade from whole grain flour that has been soured, and the mozzarella cheese is not full fat. The tomato sauce and pepperoni I add to it I would neither consider to be healthy or unhealthy, but the main sources of calories (flour and cheese) are healthy IMO. The way I see it, my homemade pizza is far from commercial pizza.
Likewise, I eat cake and cookies very often, but these are homemade. They are certainly lower in fat and sugar than commercial ones. While I don't exactly consider these homemade sweets junk or unhealthy, I wouldn't call it "healthy" overall either.
Note: While I have talked about some foods being lower in fat as what I consider being healthier, by no means am I eating a particularly low fat diet. I just get a lot of my fat from other foods where it's naturally found in (nuts and cheddar cheese being examples).
Another thing: Dietary restrictions. I do have a somewhat sensitive digestive system. When it comes to something like eggs, I can't sit down and eat 2 eggs one day and 2 eggs the next. So while I consider eggs to be healthy, it wouldn't be healthy for me to eat 4 eggs over a two day time period.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »goddessofawesome 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?
Because it contains known carcinogens. Red Dye #3 has been acknowledged by the FDA to be a carcinogen but it's still in foods
It does? Please give me a reference for that. I certainly can't find it.
What does this have to do with #3?
because #1 and #2 are OK..its only when you get to #3 that everything goes to hell..0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions