Define "healthy" food...
Replies
-
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?
Why are you making assumptions as to what other people do? I think it's more likely that people who have deficiencies aren't thoughtfully justifying it, as with the article quoted, but simply don't care much. People know if they are eating an overall nutritious diet or an overall deficient diet, most likely. I've never known anyone who survived mostly on Whoppers, fries, Coke, and candy bars or the like who really thought they were eating well.
But back in the fall I ate pretty much as I currently am (which I consider pretty healthy), and yet added in a half cup of ice cream most nights. Part of that was that I like it, part of it was getting used to having more calories again and that I personally see no great benefit to adding in another piece of bread or some such (when I had plenty of fiber) vs some ice cream. But also for many people it might make their overall diet more pleasurable (because of the overall mix) and thus more sustainable--they feel like they can eat in a healthy fashion without cutting out anything they love or without deprivation vs. thinking that if I want a bit more something before bed my only choice is to roast a sweet potato or (as that's not maximum nutrient density, depending on how defined) eat some more broccoli (which is a really hard way to get 200 more calories, too).0 -
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
Not surprising you find such an elementary concept strange.
I am sure you get a lot of PM from her. I used to myself because I would always call her out on her doctor comment. You know what happen. She stopped saying go see a doctor as much. Kind of like how I used to use t-nation a lot on here.
0 -
JeffseekingV 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
What is Red Dye #5?. I google's it and honestly could not find it.
I think she meant #3. She might have made a mistake by stating #5.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/30/science/fda-limits-red-dye-no-3.html
I don't know if it's actually bad or not but that's one thing that came up via google
If #1 and #2 are fine and #3 is being limited, then obviously #5 would be much worse.
Just to be safe, I'm going to avoid consuming any red #5.
0 -
Please, no logic. That does not belong in this thread.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.
Got any more?
How many need to be listed before it's socially acceptable to worry about what's in your food? How many are ok? Does it just have to do with how they affect you? I kind of feel like not having deformed babies is important. Call me crazy
There were babies born deformed hundreds of years ago also, explain that??
that is one of my most FAVORITE arguments about pre-natals ever.
I simple cannot understand how we as a species survived without all this extra flourish- I hate when people bring up babies.
Come off it- women were dropping babies between sprints way back when.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
So more micronutrients isn't always a good thing then?
Or in other words, sometimes more micronutrients aren't inherently healthier? And may actually be unhealthy?
Selenium is water soluble.
Selenium is a micronutrient.
Selenium in excess is not a good idea.
Balance and context, in all things.
Was just about to post this. Plus, selenium is toxic in pretty small doses.
0 -
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
My mother is allergic to mushrooms. In this context, are mushrooms healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to wine. In this context, is wine healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to cheese. In this context, is cheese healthy or unhealthy?
My mother has to avoid yeast for her autoimmune disease. In this context, is yeast healthy or unhealthy?
Of course food has a context. It doesn't sit in a vacuum until it goes bad, but rather it interacts with the other foods being eaten and the person doing the eating.
0 -
You got one, which asked that you stop replying to every single post of mine with nastiness and that maybe we could just agree to disagree without clogging up the forums with nastiness. I suggested that you could send the nastiness to me via PM instead of putting it on the boards, because it wouldn't bother me at all and nobody else would have to read it. When you explained that you felt it was "important" to "call people out" on the Internet, I wished you well.yopeeps025 wrote: »
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
Not surprising you find such an elementary concept strange.
I am sure you get a lot of PM from her. I used to myself because I would always call her out on her doctor comment. You know what happen. She stopped saying go see a doctor as much. Kind of like how I used to use t-nation a lot on here.
You never got "a lot" and they weren't mean at all, but intended to create some peace.
MrM will not be receiving any PMs from me and if she/he says that I sent one, it won't be true.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Speaking of dietary fat, I'm out to have a delicious Chipotle steak bowl with sour cream, cheese, and guacamole...(and yes, Chipotle burrito-maker, I know that the guacamole costs extra).
Be warned; there may be extra guacamole there...
0 -
lemurcat12 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?
Why are you making assumptions as to what other people do? I think it's more likely that people who have deficiencies aren't thoughtfully justifying it, as with the article quoted, but simply don't care much. People know if they are eating an overall nutritious diet or an overall deficient diet, most likely. I've never known anyone who survived mostly on Whoppers, fries, Coke, and candy bars or the like who really thought they were eating well.
But back in the fall I ate pretty much as I currently am (which I consider pretty healthy), and yet added in a half cup of ice cream most nights. Part of that was that I like it, part of it was getting used to having more calories again and that I personally see no great benefit to adding in another piece of bread or some such (when I had plenty of fiber) vs some ice cream. But also for many people it might make their overall diet more pleasurable (because of the overall mix) and thus more sustainable--they feel like they can eat in a healthy fashion without cutting out anything they love or without deprivation vs. thinking that if I want a bit more something before bed my only choice is to roast a sweet potato or (as that's not maximum nutrient density, depending on how defined) eat some more broccoli (which is a really hard way to get 200 more calories, too).
im not making assumptions, its a fact. i dont mean it insultingly, most people (including myself) dont care enough to pay that close of attention to their diet. Im referring to people specifically on this site, they use the iffym approach to justify eating crap. after hitting protein and fat goals some people think they can eat a bag of doritos just because they need to carb up, when in reality they are still short on vitamin C or something else essential. they dont even do it consciously, because the attitude on these forums is wayyy too geared toward eat what you want within your macros
ETA; reading back now i suppose its more of a lack of knowledge than abuse of the premise, but the end result is the same0 -
goddessofawesome 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
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.
But how much would you need to have a lethal dose?? context matters here.
And was used in the example of apples. Not sure why it is relevant for one thing and not another.
0 -
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
Whether or not a food is healthy for you depends on context. Not sure why that is a strange concept.
If I've eaten nothing but spinach all day, a Twinkie is going to be better for me than another leaf of spinach.
If I've eaten really low-fat all day, a high fat food would be a better choice than a low fat food.
If I've eaten lots of meat today, a veg would be a better pick than a chicken breast.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »OP just defines healthy from a macronutrient level and doesn't seem to consider the micronutrient level. Food to me is more than a measure of calories.
i meant to mention micros in OP but did not , so slight over sight on my part...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Got any more?
How many need to be listed before it's socially acceptable to worry about what's in your food? How many are ok? Does it just have to do with how they affect you? I kind of feel like not having deformed babies is important. Call me crazy
Give me more than one. You said there are chemical banned by other countries. Since you avoid thethe chemicals you must obviously know what they are. Why would it be "this is one of the top of my head"? Do you shop for your food? How do you know what chemicals to avoid if you don't know what chemicals those are?
I do buy my own food. My grocery cart usually contains one ingredient foods and I don't have to worry about it because I'm not buying foods that contain those chemicals. I don't have to constantly check labels because I buy foods that I've already deemed healthy (to my personal preference).
You asked to be provided with information supporting that there were toxins in food that were dangerous and I gave one example. You chose not to address that and asked for more. Can you tell me why I shouldn't worry about BOV? Be specific.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
So if it's bad for us why hasn't the FDA banned it?
Because the FDA is a sham and health related issues like food should be run by the cdc? I don't know.
But it's banned in other countries, along with other artificial dyes like yellow 6 that are also known carcinogens. You can google it. Today most artificial colors are also made from coal tar. Yum!
Can you direct me to where I can find out about Red Dye #5, I am having problems finding it. And yes, I tried to google it.
Also, I am pretty sure that most artificial colors are not made from coal tar.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
that would be "dietary context"..meaning how you combine the foods within your diet to hit certain goals; i.e. fat loss, body composition, general health, etc.
if you eat broccoli, asparagus, and twinkies, and hit macor/micor/calorie goals is that healthy or unhealthy?
0 -
DesdemonaRose wrote: »Wow, are there people who really don't know what a empty calorie is? Soda is a empty calorie, it gives you zero nutrients that your body can use. Depending on what ice-cream you buy, it can have things like protein and calcium (from the dairy). So, some might consider it empty because it's usually seen as a treat, but it's not a completely empty calorie if it has dairy, soy, or something else in it with some nutritional value.
Don't forget genes, they play a pretty big role in how long you live. That is why grandma can smoke till she's 100 but the guy down the street died from lung cancer at 35.
Obviously what is "healthy," is debatable, but if you only ate Doritos for a month you would probably feel a bit *kitten* by the end of the month and might even have a vitamin deficiency or two. If you don't look outside of Western societies where we tend to eat a variety and everything is fortified then it might seem like it doesn't matter. But, take a look at populations with limited food supplies and it matters to them. You really can have a vitamin or nutrient deficiency. There are people in America who die from malnutrition, just not very many. As long as there is some variety in your life then you are probably good, even if that variety is Taco Bell one day and McDonald's the next. There are a lot of studies that show excessive consumption of some things can cause earlier death in some populations. But, of course, genes play a role and the debate of which matters more is still plenty there. Nutrition is a newer science and there are a lot of variables.
Malnutrition Death Rates by Country:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
Ever drank a coke pre or post training? I'm going to assume you haven't.
What ice cream has no calcium or protein?
You used the example that if we only ate Doritos for a month then we would feel bad and have a deficiency or 2. Now, who eats only Doritos all day every day and nothing else. It's amazing how often you people use extreme examples like this to prove no point. A point you don't have. It's ridiculous. Let's say this, don't you think it would be just as bad if someone at pure broccoli all month, nothing but broccoli. You opened your statement by saying you were surprised at the fact that people don't know what empty calories are but you don't even understand nutrition so should you really be that surprised?
From a nutrient value only, I'd probably be better off eating broccoli than Doritos all month.0 -
Oh man...this has really exploded since I opened this. I will say this - I believe that the premise that all foods are equally healthy, depending on what the person's goals are, is largely based upon whether that person is aiming to lose or gain weight. It seems that a lot of persons who are saying that there is no food that is inherently healthy or unhealthy, are using this as their rationale.
If you do not use "weight loss" as a method of defining the relative healthiness of foods (so therefore CICO and to a certain extent IIFYM are removed from the equation) then I think you can safely say that some foods are healthier than others, by defining healthiness by macro- and micro-nutrient density and general benefit of eating that food (larger picture rather than individual - yes you may have gout and may not be able to eat red meat, but most persons can eat red meat without ill-effects, and we can assess the food by the way it will affect the average person).
If I eat 1000 calories of Twinkies, I won't gain any more weight than I will if I eat 1000 calories of chicken, avocado and sweet potatoes. However, outside of the weight-loss component, most people would have to agree that eating the balanced meal which hits most macronutrient groups and includes some micronutrients, is healthier than the meal of Twinkies.
This of course does not mean that you should never eat Twinkies, or even that you should never eat a 1000-calorie meal of Twinkies. Just that by using the above definition of health (which was requested by the OP) a meal of Twinkies is less healthy than a balanced meal containing more than one macro and several beneficial micros.
OK - but who just eats a meal full of Twinkies? Why is that even a comparison?????0 -
The food doesn't have context. The mushrooms are no less healthy because your mother is allergic them. They remain mushrooms and have not changed in any way.diannethegeek wrote: »
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
My mother is allergic to mushrooms. In this context, are mushrooms healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to wine. In this context, is wine healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to cheese. In this context, is cheese healthy or unhealthy?
My mother has to avoid yeast for her autoimmune disease. In this context, is yeast healthy or unhealthy?
Of course food has a context. It doesn't sit in a vacuum until it goes bad, but rather it interacts with the other foods being eaten and the person doing the eating.
Your mother shouldn't eat things if she is allergic to them. The food itself remains the same and remains unchanged.
0 -
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
But the point is that whether broccoli is a better choice than, say, some shortribs or a bowl of pasta carbonara depends on context. Some would say (including you I would guess, but will let you say) that the broccoli is always better, because those foods are high fat (high saturated fat, even) and lower in micronutrient content, but if you've mostly eaten fruits and veggies that day I think either would be a better choice than more broccoli. You probably need the calories and certainly need fat and protein.
Now, more often than not, people easily get enough fat, and don't have that much trouble coming up with better sources of protein (per calorie, no value judgment here) than the dishes referenced, and might be short on vegetables and, to a lesser degree, fruits and other sources of fiber, so it's easily to assume that those foods are per se healthy and the others ones to avoid, but it's really the overall mix that matters, not the specific foods. At least, not unless the food is actively unhealthy, which for me means certain things like transfats (and more, but I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about this). From what you've written I get the sense that you consider a healthy diet much lower fat, especially low sat. fat, and also low sodium, whereas I am not so concerned about those things (in the context of my overall diet), so an individual food that brings you over your limit of those could reasonably be considered unhealthy by you and not by me, but again I think that's context.
0 -
The food doesn't have context. The mushrooms are no less healthy because your mother is allergic them. They remain mushrooms and have not changed in any way.diannethegeek wrote: »
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
My mother is allergic to mushrooms. In this context, are mushrooms healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to wine. In this context, is wine healthy or unhealthy?
My mother is allergic to cheese. In this context, is cheese healthy or unhealthy?
My mother has to avoid yeast for her autoimmune disease. In this context, is yeast healthy or unhealthy?
Of course food has a context. It doesn't sit in a vacuum until it goes bad, but rather it interacts with the other foods being eaten and the person doing the eating.
Your mother shouldn't eat things if she is allergic to them. The food itself remains the same and remains unchanged.
The mushrooms stay the same, true, but the context changes.
0 -
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.
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.
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"….
If you meant to include micronutrients, I don't really see how you meant to include it. Unless you forgot to include entire paragraphs? If that is the case, then you might want to actually put those in because it's the cause of most of the pages in this thread.0 -
TIL carbohydrates are not nutrients.0
-
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)
You never put that context of hitting your micros/macros in your original post.0 -
As I said, you may wish to take your overall diet into consideration when making your food choices.
The overall diet is composed of all the individual food choices. Since the individual food choices make up the diet, attention to them is obviously important.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Food has no context. Broccoli doesn't cease to be broccoli on a dinner plate because you had an Oreo at lunch. It won't become and orange or an ice cream cone. Broccoli is still broccoli no matter what else you have eaten. If you took one tiny broccoli crumb and tossed it into a pile of corn, the broccoli crumb is still broccoli.
The food has no context.
If you're trying to decide whether or not you should eat something, then you might want to consider your overall diet and your overall health in that decision-making process. However, your overall diet will not make that particular thing any better or worse for you. If you have eaten nothing but Twinkies for six months, that doesn't make the asparagus any healthier. If you have eaten nothing but asparagus for six months, that doesn't make the Twinkie any healthier. The asparagus and the Twinkie are still just asparagus and Twinkies. They have no context.
This concept of "Food is different depending on context" is just strange.
Whether or not a food is healthy for you depends on context. Not sure why that is a strange concept.
If I've eaten nothing but spinach all day, a Twinkie is going to be better for me than another leaf of spinach.
If I've eaten really low-fat all day, a high fat food would be a better choice than a low fat food.
If I've eaten lots of meat today, a veg would be a better pick than a chicken breast.
Your diet, however, does not change the food. The food remains the same.
0 -
-
JeffseekingV 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.
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.
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"….
If you meant to include micronutrients, I don't really see how you meant to include it. Unless you forgot to include entire paragraphs? If that is the case, then you might want to actually put those in because it's the cause of most of the pages in this thread.
Where does he talk only about macros?
I read it as taking the whole diet into context. Which includes Macros and Micros.
0 -
It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that some foods are not healthier than others.
It would be similarly ludicrous to suggest that someone cannot be HEALTHY and eat UNHEALTHY foods sometimes.
However, a person cannot be HEALTHY and eat ONLY EXCLUSIVELY UNHEALTHY foods. (capitals for emphasis, not sass.)
Here is my simplified example:
Op said something along the lines of "I've hit my macros/micros for the day, why can't I have a donut?" No one is saying you can't. Go right ahead. Enjoy.
But if donuts were ALL you ate, you'd get pretty sick pretty quickly even if you ate them within a calorie limit. Now, in the context of WEIGHT LOSS, you would still lose weight eating 1000 calories of donuts per day and nothing else. But you would also be hungry, iron deficient, calcium deficient, protein deficient, etc.
If you eat a relatively balanced diet there is absolutely no reason you can't indulge in unhealthy treats. But suggesting that in the abstract a can of coke is as healthy as a bowl of raw kale is downright silly. I think most of the people suggesting this are trying to use semantics to make a controversial argument and fluff some feathers.
Someone a while back brought up the recommend diet for women during pregnancy, and it was dismissed as "well that's one of the only times it is reasonable to consider those things." I understand pregnant women need a greater amount of certain nutrients, like folic acid, etc, but I don't understand the logic of dismissing the implications of eating a better diet during pregnancy. Think about it this way- if you wouldn't want it going into the body of your growing child, why would you want it going into your own body? My personal answer? I don't, but I'm still going to have treats occasionally when I want to.
Also, and this is an aside to the main point, given that this is a weight loss website I think it is important to note that it is MUCH easier to overeat on UNHEALTHY foods for most people. Most (not all, but most) people to not become obese by eating a diet comprised solely of HEALTHY foods. That is something that I think deserves consideration in this debate.
This whole debate is a little like saying the following: Is smoking healthy? NO. Can a smoker BE a healthy person? YES. What determines whether or not that individual ends up dying at a young age of cancer? Who knows, it is a toss up. Some smokers will live to be 100. But many of us feel like we'd rather not take the risk.0 -
Op said something along the lines of "I've hit my macros/micros for the day, why can't I have a donut?" No one is saying you can't. Go right ahead. Enjoy.
I would argue that many people in this very thread seem to be saying that you can't. Because food dyes, additives, and toxins.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions